1

LAW OF TORTS PROJECT

‘REMOTENESS OF DAMAGE AND
NERVOUS SHOCK’
SUBMITTED TO:
DR. RITA

DAVINDER SINGH
ROLL NO.31/22
BA LL.B
 2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special gratitude to my teacher Dr. RIta,

who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project on
the topic ‘Remoteness of Damages and Nervous Shock’
I would also like to extend my gratitude to the librarian of my
department for providing me with all the books that were required.
I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me in
finalizing this project within the limited time frame.
 3

INTRODUCTION
The doctrine of Remoteness of Damage
There are certain circumstances in which a wrongful act produces a
series of consequences. In other words, when a tort is committed,
the injury may be proximate or too remote. Natural justice demands
that a person should not be put to heavy liability commensurate to
the series of consequences and hence, law provides remedy to
injure if the injury is proximate and not for the injury which is too
remote. 

For example: A beats B slightly with a hand stick. If B is slightly

injured, the injury is proximate, for which A is liable. Suppose B
dies, the injury is too remote for which A cannot be made liable.
No one can be held for all consequences of his wrongful act because
there is no end to the consequences of an act. He will be liable only
for those consequences which are direct consequence of his
negligent act. According to this principle, the plaintiff has to prove
relationship between cause and reason for getting damages for harm
caused by the defendant’s act, that is, he has to show relationship
between the act of the defendant and the injury caused by the act. If
the harm caused to the plaintiff is not direct consequence of the
 4

defendant’s act, it will be considered too remote and plaintiff may

not be entitled to any damages.

PRINCIPLE
The doctrine of ‘ Remoteness of Damage’ is enshrined in the Latin
maxim “injure non remota causa sed proxima spectatur” which
means, the immediate, not the remote cause of any event is to be
considered. This doctrine is also called as “the Doctrine of Natural
and Probable Consequence.
 5

TESTS OF REMOTENESS
To determine whether the injury is proximate or too remote, the
Court adopts the following two tests:

 TEST OF REASONABLE FORESIGHT

According to this test, if the consequences of a wrongful act
could have been foreseen by a reasonable man, they are not too
remote. If, on the other hand, a reasonable man would not have
foreseen the consequences, they are too remote. According to
the opinion of Pollock C.B. in Rigby v. Hewitt,' and
Greenland v. Chaplin, the liability of the d-efendant is only
for those consequences which could have been foreseen by a
reasonable man placed in the circumstances of the wrongdoer.
According to this test, if I commit a wrong, I will be liable only
for those consequences which I could foresee, for whatever
could not have been foreseen is too remote a consequence of
my wrongful act.
 6

 The Wagon Mound Case

This case established that, within the principles of remoteness
of damage, damage will only be compensable where that
damage could have been reasonably foreseen by the reasonable
man.The defendants ship, the Wagon Mound was refuelling
another ship and negligently spilt oil into the water, no effort
was made to clear up the oil and it quickly spread to the
claimant’s wharf. Welding was taking place on the wharf and
sparks caused debris underneath the wharf to ignite which then
caused the oil to ignite, causing significant damage by largely
destroying the wharf and the equipment on it. It is not just that
a defendant is liable for all the outcomes of their negligent
behaviour, just because they have resulted from the behaviour.
Damage will only be compensable where that damage could
have been reasonably foreseen by the reasonable man.
 7

 TEST OF DIRECTNESS
The test of reasonable foresight was rejected and the test of
directness was considered to be more appropriate by the Court
of Appeal in Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd.
According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the
direct consequences of his wrongful act, whether he could have
foreseen them or not; because consequences which directly
follow a wrongful act are not too remote. The only question
which has to be seen in such a case is whether the defendant's
act is wrongful or not, i.e., could he foresee some damage. If
the answer to this question is in the affirmative, i.e., if he could
foresee any damage to the plaintiff, then he is liable not merely
for those consequences which he could have foreseen but for
all the direct consequences of his wrongful act.
 8

 Re Polemis and Furness vs. Withy &

Co. (1921)
The defendant chartered the plaintiff’s ship for loading fuel oil.
Due to normal leakage, there was a petrol vapour in the hold.
An iron plank fell down into the hold due to negligence of the
defendant’s servant. As a result, there was a spark resulting in
ignition and the ship was completely destroyed. Plaintiff sued
the defendant for damages. 

The House of Lords, applying the above principle, opined that

the test of forseeability followed till 1921 is no more a law and
held the defendant liable adopting the principle of directness.
 9

NERVOUS SHOCK
This branch of law is comparatively of recent origin. It provides
relief when a person may get physical injury not by an impact, e.g.,
by stick, bullet or sword but merely by a nervous shock through
what he has seen or heard.

As far back as 1888, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in

Victorian Railway Commissioner v. Coultas,' did not recognize
injury caused by a shock sustained through the medium of eye or ear
without direct contact. They thought that an action could not be
sustained unless there was a physical impact or something akin to it.
Not long after the above stated decision we, however, find that
injury caused by nervous shock, without there being any physical
impact, has been recognized. The crude view that the law should
take cognizance only of physical injury resulting from actual impact
has been discarded, and it is now well recognized that an action will
lie for injury by shock sustained through the medium of the eye or
the ear, without direct contact.

CASE LAW OF NERVOUS SHOCK

 Wikinson v. Downton
 10

In 1897, in Wilkinson v. Downton,' the defendant was held

liable when the plaintiff- suffered nervous shock and got
seriously ill on being told falsely, by way of practical joke, by
the defendant that her husband had broken both the legs in an
accident.
 Dulieu v. White and Sons
In Dulieu v. White and Sons also, an action for nervous shock
resulting in physical injuries was recognized. There the
defendant's servant negligently drove a horse van into a public
house and the plaintiff, a pregnant woman, who was standing
there behind the bar, although not physically injured, suffered
nervous shock, as a result of which she got seriously ill and
gave premature birth to a stillborn child. The defendants were
held liable.
 Dooley v. Cammell
In Dooley v. Cammell Laird and Co, the plaintiff, the
driver of a crane, suffered nervous shock when he saw that
by the breaking of a rope of the crane, its load fell into the
hold of a ship where some men were at work. The rope had
broken due to the negligence of the defendants and they
were held liable to the plaintiff.
 11

REFERENCES

 Law of Torts by R.K. Bangia

 The Wagon Mound Case
 Re Polemis and Furness vs. Withy &
Co. (1921)
 Wikinson v. Downton
 Dulieu v. White and Sons
 Dooley v. Cammell