Remoteness of Damage

Remoteness of Damage

In tort law, the concept of "remoteness of damage" refers to the idea that the damages that a plaintiff can recover in a lawsuit must have been foreseeable at the time the tort was committed. In other words, the damages must be a natural and foreseeable consequence of the tortious conduct.

The test for determining the remoteness of damages is the "reasonable foreseeability" test, which asks whether it was reasonably foreseeable at the time the tort was committed that the damages would result from the tortious conduct. If the damages were not foreseeable at the time the tort was committed, they may be too remote to be recoverable. 

For example, if a driver negligently causes a car accident, and as a result, the victim sustains injuries, those injuries would be foreseeable and recoverable in a tort case. However, if the victim subsequently develops a condition that is unrelated to the injuries sustained in the accident (such as a mental illness), those damages would not be foreseeable and would not be recoverable in a tort case.

It's important to note that the concept of remoteness of damages is not the same as causation. Causation asks whether the defendant's actions were the cause of the plaintiff's damages, while remoteness asks whether those damages were foreseeable at the time the tort was committed. So, even if the defendant's actions were the cause of the plaintiff's damages, those damages may still be too remote to be recoverable if they were not foreseeable at the time the tort was committed.

Some important cases involving the concept of remoteness of damages:

In the case of The Wagon Mound (No. 1), the defendants' vessel spilled oil into the harbor, and the oil eventually caught fire and damaged the plaintiff's wharf. The court held that the damages were too remote, because it was not foreseeable at the time the oil was spilled that it would catch fire and damage the plaintiff's wharf.

In the case of The Wagon Mound (No. 2), the defendants' vessel spilled oil into the harbor, and the oil eventually caught fire and damaged the plaintiff's vessel. The court held that the damages were not too remote, because it was foreseeable at the time the oil was spilled that it could catch fire and damage the plaintiff's vessel.

In the case of Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ltd v Newman Industries Ltd, the defendants' negligent installation of a boiler caused a fire, which damaged the plaintiff's laundry. The court held that the damages were not too remote, because it was foreseeable at the time of the negligent installation that a fire could result and damage the plaintiff's laundry.