The court held the defendant liable even though the consequences of the act could not be foreseen.

In this case, what happened was that spark from the railway engine set fire to the plaintiff’s cottage located 200 yards away from the engine, the spark was carried by the high wind as a result the cottage caught fire and the plaintiff suffered a huge loss. Case-Smith v London and southwestern railway co. So, in a situation where the injury caused and the wrongful act are not connected or not linked together then there is no liability and the injury will be considered as too remote to claim the damage. Here in this case the fracture is the direct consequence of X’s wrongful act so he is liable for his actions. Under this test whether a person could have foreseen the consequences of his wrongful act or not doesn’t matter because the consequences are not too remote and directly follows from the wrongful act.įor example, if a person X hits a person Y on his leg with a rod in his hand due to which he gets a fracture on his leg. The test of directness states that a person is only responsible for the direct consequences of his wrongful act, not the indirect one. So, if X a person commits a wrong, he will only be liable for the consequences of the act which he could foresee, and anything which cannot be foreseeable is said to be too remote to claim the damage.

This test is also called a test of probability meaning a person is responsible for the probable consequences of his act. Also, a reasonable person is a prudent man who takes all the precautions to avoid any kind of harm and is able to determine the consequences of his act. This test was upheld in the case of RIGBY V HEWITT (1850 5 Ex 240). Test of directness Test of reasonable foresightĪccording to this test if a reasonable person could have foreseen the consequences of the act done and the consequence is not too remote then this is used to determine the liability.There is basically two tests to determine the remoteness of damage. As his act was the proximate cause of damage even though his act was farthest from the damage in so far as the act of Mr. Z did the same thing and then it fell on C as a result C lost his eye vision. Y in order to save himself threw it on Mr. X threw a lighted a squib into a crowd it fell upon Mr. Here X pushing Y is causa causans which is the real cause of the event whereas the presence of iron rod is causa sine qua non which led the injury to happen.

There should be “ causa causans ” meaning the immediate cause of injury not “ causa sine qua non” meaning cause without which the consequences would not have happened.įor example, X, and Y involved in an argument in which X pushes Y who falls on the iron rod negligently left by C and gets injured. The defendant is liable only for the wrongful act if it has a direct connection with the act committed. The law cannot take account of everything that follows a wrongful act. One of the most important maxims of the doctrine of the remoteness of damage is “ in jure non remota causa sed Proxima spectatur ” which means that in law the immediate and proximate not the remote cause must be considered while deciding the liability. In law, a person is liable only for the consequences which are not too remote.

No person can be made liable ad infinitum for all the consequences arising from his actions in tort. The whole concept of the remoteness of damage is to determine up to what extent the defendant is liable for his actions in tort. The doctrine of the remoteness of damage puts limitations on the liability of the defendant.

Ad infinitum meaning in law