All Courses
Explore Courses UPSC Exam UPSC Test Series Free Notes EduRev Infinity Get the App Login Join for Free
Sign in Open App
CLAT Exam  >  CLAT Questions  >   Remoteness of damage is an interesting princ... Start Learning for Free
SaveJoin the Discussion on the App
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 foresight
2. The test of directness
The 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?
  • a)
    Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.
  • b)
    Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.
  • c)
    Both (A) and (B)
  • d)
    No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.
Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
FREE This question is part of
Download PDF Attempt Test
Download PDF Attempt this Test
Verified Answer
Remoteness of damage is an interesting principle. Once the damage is ...
Mandeep can be held liable as the ceiling in his factory was very low and it is reasonably foreseeable that anyone could get hurt, which is the direct consequence, of the ceiling being low.
View all questions of this test
< Previous Question Next Question >
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. In the situation given in the previous question, can Mandeep be held liable for Suri committing suicide?

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?

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?

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Under Article 235 of the Constitution of India, the administrative control over the members of district and subordinate judiciary in the States vest with the concerned High Court. Further, the State Government, in consultation with the High Court, frames the Rules and Regulations regarding the issues of appointment, promotion, and reservations etc. of Judicial Officers in the State Judicial Service.Therefore, Central Government has no role in this regard. Based only on the principle of law and argument identified by the author above, would such a reservation be valid if made by the Central Government?

The Union government has called upon the Supreme Court to form a seven-judge Bench to reconsider the formulation in M. Nagaraj vs Union of India (2006) that it should be applied to the SC and ST communities.This verdict was a reality check to the concept of reservation. Even while upholding Constitution amendments meant to preserve reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority; it contained an exposition of the equality principle that hedged reservation against a set of constitutional requirements, without which the structure of equal opportunity would collapse. These were 'quantifiable data' to show the backwardness of a community, the inadequacy of its representation in service, and the lack of adverse impact on "the overall efficiency of administration". In Jarnail Singh (2018), another Constitution Bench reaffirmed the applicability of creamy layer norms to SC/STs. However, it ruled that Nagaraj was wrong to require a demonstration of backwardness for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, as it was directly contrary to the nine-judge Bench judgment in Indra Sawhney (1992).It is curious that Jarnail Singh accepted the presumption of the backwardness of Scheduled Castes and Tribes, but favoured applying the 'means test' to exclude from the purview of SC/ST reservation those who had achieved some level of economic advancement. While the Centre has accepted that the 'creamy layer' norm is needed to ensure that only those genuinely backward get reservation benefits, it is justifiably upset that this principle has been extended to Dalits, who have been acknowledged to be the most backward among the backward sections. Another problem is the question whether the exclusion of the advanced sections among SC/ST candidates can be disallowed only for promotions.Most of them may not fall under the 'creamy layer' category at the entry level, but after some years of service and promotions, they may reach an income level at which they fall under the 'creamy layer'. This may result in the defeat of the object of the Constitution amendments that the court itself had upheld to protect reservation in promotions as well as consequential seniority. Another landmark verdict in the history of affirmative action jurisprudence may be needed to settle these questions.Q. Article 16(6) have been inserted in the constitution.This enables the State to provide the benefits of reservation on preferential basis to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWSs) in civil posts and services in the Government of India without adversely affecting the proportionate seats of Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. Based on the author's argument and given information, will the EWS reservation adversely affect the SC/STs reservation?

Top Courses for CLATView all

Top Courses for CLAT

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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. 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 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice 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?a)Yes. Mandeep can be held responsible as it was reasonably foreseeable damage.b)Yes, Mandeep can be held liable as the wrongful act was a direct consequence and not too remote.c)Both (A) and (B)d)No. Mandeep cannot be held liable as Suri was aware of the low ceiling.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.
Explore Courses for CLAT exam

Top Courses for CLAT

Explore Courses

Suggested Free Tests

Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
10M+ students study on EduRev
Get App
© EduRev
Education Revolution
Follow Us
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup