Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Yandrsquo;s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Yandrsquo;s daughterandrsquo;s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from Xandrsquo;s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Yandrsquo;s daughterandrsquo;s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity

Open App

CLAT Exam > CLAT Questions > Principle: The defendant is liable only for t...

Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.

Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.

a)
X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.
b)
X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries received by Z.
c)
Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Y and his family.
d)
X is not liable at all.

Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Join for Free

Join for Free

Verified Answer

Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which a...

The principle states that the defendant should have reasonably foreseen the injury suffered by the plaintiff. In the given factual situation, X could have reasonably foreseen that a fire might burst out because of his bursting crackers and destroying goods or injure persons. However, the emotional trauma caused to Y due to the postponement of marriage was too remote a consequence of fire for X to foresee. Hence (b) is the correct option.

View all questions of this test

Most Upvoted Answer

Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which a...

Principle of Liability for Consequences:

Facts:
X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali near Y's godown, causing a fire inside the godown. This resulted in the destruction of goods, physical injuries to Z, and emotional trauma to Y and his family.

Analysis:

X's Liability:
- X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire as it was a direct consequence of his actions.
- X is also liable for the physical injuries received by Z as they were a foreseeable consequence of the fire caused by X's actions.
Therefore, the correct answer is:

Option B: X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries received by Z.

Answered by Glance Learning Institute · View profile

View all answers Start learning for free

Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Similar CLAT Doubts

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. ‘Scott’ threw a lighted squib into a crowd and it fell upon ‘Jack’. In order to prevent injury to himself, Jack did the same thing and it fell upon Jill. Jill in his turn did the same thing and it then fell on Shepherd, as a result of which Shepherd lost one of his eyes. Decide the liability of Scott?

View answer

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. Suri was 6 feet 4 inches tall, working in the factory of Mandeep. The factory had a very low ceiling. Suri was aware of this problem and took as much precaution as possible, however, one fateful day, he banged his head on the fan and got severely hurt. Due to getting hurt on the head, he started suffering from depression and anxiety. One day while his treatment was still going on, in a fit of anxiety and depression, Suri hung himself and committed suicide. Suri 's kin holds Mandeep liable. Can Mandeep be held responsible for Suri getting hurt on the head?

View answer

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?

View answer

Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is caused by a wrong, there have to be liabilities. The question is how much liability can be fixed, and what factor determines it. The principle of Remoteness of Damages is relevant to such cases. An event constituting a wrong can constitute a single consequence or may constitute a set of consequences i.e. series of acts/wrongs. The damage may be proximate or might be remote, or too remote. A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.In Haynes v. Harwood - the defendant’s servants negligently left a horse van unattended in a crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to rescuing the woman and children on the road. One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the negligence of the servants was a remote cause. The rules on the remoteness of damage in the contract are found in the Court of Exchequer’s judgment in Hadley v Baxendale, as interpreted in later cases. In Hadley v Baxendale, the plaintiff’s mill had come to a standstill due to their crankshaft breakage. The defendant carrier failed to deliver the broken crankshaft to the manufacturer within the specified time. There had been a delay in restarting the mill. The plaintiff sued to recover the profits they would have made if the mill had been started without delay. The court rejected the claim on the ground that the mill’s profits must be stopped by an unreasonable delay in the carrier’s delivery of the broken shaft to the third person.Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recoverability of consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that process, two formulas have been highlighted:1. The test of reasonable foresight2. The test of directnessThe Test of Reasonable Foresight - If the consequences of a wrongful act could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.The Test of Directness- according to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could foresee them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.Q. A person while driving on a road, hits a girl on the footpath. The girl tumbles over a bicycle and breaks her finger, the bicycle man loses his balance and gets in front of a petrol tanker, the tanker to save the man on the bicycle steers left but unfortunately hits the railing to a river bridge and falls into it, the lock of the petrol tanker breaks resulting in the blast of petrol tanker in which the driver died. Decide the damage caused to the girl and the petrol tanker?

View answer

The air quality of Delhi post deepavali was “very poor”, according to the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), but lesser than the “severe” category as predicted by government agencies.The Air Quality Index (AQI) stood at 351, worst this season, with one monitoring station showing "severe" and rest of the 35 stations for which data is available showing ‘very poor’ AQI, as per CPCB data.Meanwhile, according to government-run monitoring agency SAFAR, the AQI is 506 and in (x) category.SAFAR has advised people to avoid all outdoor physical activity, give a miss to walk, and close room windows. “Stop any activity if you experience any unusual coughing, chest discomfort, wheezing, breathing difficulty, or fatigue and consult a doctor,” the advisory said.Last October, the Supreme Court banned the sale, use, and manufacture of crackers that were not (y). Though “(y) crackers” were neither manufactured nor available in the market last year, this Deepavali, “(y) crackers” were available.Recently, SAFAR predicted that the air quality of Delhi was likely to spike to “severe” category in the early hours of Monday due to the effect of firecrackers on Deepavali night. It had also said that it would be for a short period with about “half” the magnitude of Deepavali in 2018.The prediction was made with the assumption that emissions due to firecrackers will be 50% of average firecracker emission of 2017 and 2018. SAFAR had also said that higher boundary layer winds were likely to flush out the expected high impact of firecracker emissions.Q. What has been replaced with (y) in the passage above?

View answer

Top Courses for CLATView all

Current Affairs: Daily, Weekly & Monthly

Legal Reasoning for CLAT

Lucent for GK

Crash Course for CLAT

CLAT Mock Test Series 2026

Top Courses for CLAT

View all

Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?

Share with a Friend

Answer this doubt

Question Description
Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2025 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2025 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Principle: The defendant is liable only for those consequences which are not too remote from his conduct. If the consequences of a wrongful act could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too remote.Facts: X was bursting firecrackers on Diwali on a street near Y’s godown, which was full of expensive goods and other stock for Y’s daughter’s wedding ceremony. One of the rockets from X’s firecrackers somehow landed inside the godown and started a fire. As the godown was unattended because of Diwali, most of the goods were destroyed in the fire, and Y suffered huge losses. Because of the fire, two cylinders kept in the godown exploded and a passer-by Z who happened to be near the godown at that time received physical injuries. As a result of destruction of the wedding ceremony, Y’s daughter’s marriage had to be postponed, and the whole family suffered from emotional trauma. Y is claiming compensation for the goods destroyed as well as the emotional sufferings of himself and his family.a)X is liable only for the goods destroyed in the fire.b)X is liable for the goods destroyed in the fire and the physical injuries receivedby Z.c)Along with the above two heads, X will also be liable for emotional sufferings of Yand his family.d)X is not liable at all.Correct answer is option 'B'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.

Explore Courses for CLAT exam