LAW OF TORTS

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF - presentation by URJA LUNIA

REMOTENESS AND
MEASURE OF
DAMAGES WITH RESPECT
TO REMEDIES IN LAW OF
TORTS
 • A tort is a civil wrong which means that

DAMAGES
whenever a person commits an unlawful act
under this law, the nature of the case filed in
the courts is of civil nature.
• There are many remedies which are available
to the injured person and the most common
remedy is the award of damages. Damages
is that amount of money which the injured
person gets from the person who caused
injury to him.

2
In a claim for damages, the person should have suffered a legal injury
because in case no legal injury happens a person cannot claim damages even
if he suffered an actual loss. It can be understood with the help of these 3

maxims:

• Injuria sine damno, it means that there is a legal injury without any actual damage.
Here the legal right of an individual is violated therefore he has a right to go to the court
to enforce such right.

Damnum sine injuria, it means that there is actual damage but no legal injury and thus
the person cannot go to the court to enforce his right because he has no such right in the
absence of a legal injury.
REMOTENESS OF
• The term remoteness refers to the
legal test of causation which is used

DAMAGES
when determining the types of loss
caused by a breach of contract or duty
which may be compensated by a
damages award.
• Damage which is too remote is not
recoverable even if there is a factual
link between the breach of contract or
duty and the loss.
4
Overseas Tankship Ltd V Morts Dock & Engineering Co
(The Wagon Mound) (1961)
5
Morts Dock & Engineering Co. sued Overseas Tankship Ltd. (defendant) for negligence in not
sealing the oil tap, which caused the ship to fire. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd. workers forgot
to turn off a furnace tap while working on a ship. Ship oil leaked into Sydney Harbour. Morts
Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound No 1 1961) owned the dock and repaired ships
there. Oil from the lake surface floated to morts welding metal. The supervisor was told the oil
was not combustible. However, a welding spark and debris caught fire from the leaked oil,
spreading the fire quickly. This wrecked Mort's wharf. The question was whether the crew was
accountable for the fire's wharf damage. Would this also apply if it was unanticipated but
caused by negligence?
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd was found not responsible for wharf damage by the court. The
remoteness of damage test replaced Re Polemis' direct consequence test. Is the damage
predictable? The fire and furnace oil setting the wharf on fire were unforeseeable. The
Overseas Tankship would not pay compensation.
Sunita vs State Of National Capital on 2 July, 2008
That writ petition was filed by Smt. Sunita, widow of one Mohinder, who died while in
police custody on 15th August,1999. In the writ petition Smt. Sunita sought a writ, order 6
or direction to the respondent-Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi to
award compensation to the members of the family of the deceased Mohinder. He was
assaulted, tortured, and subjected to third-degree tactics during police interrogation,
resulting in significant injuries. Sunita initially filed a Supreme Court Writ Petition. The
writ petition was sent to the Delhi High Court. Family received 3 lacs. Ms. Mukta Gupta,
learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State, said that there is no consistent
formula for determining damage/compensation and that it depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case.
THANK YOU!