Скачать или смотреть Remoteness of Damage Explained | Wagon Mound & Polemis Case | Tort Law LLB | 2nd Semester LLB

What is remoteness of damage in tort law? Learn the core concepts of foreseeability and directness with landmark judgments like Wagon Mound (1961) and Polemis (1921). Understand how foreseeability limits liability, and how directness once expanded it, in this crisp explainer designed for LLB 2nd Semester.

#RemotenessofDamage Explained | #WagonMound & #PolemisCase | #TortLaw #LLB2ndSemester
#thellbguide #lawyer #law #lawoftorts #legaltips #legalrights #legalinsights #legalsupport #legalnews #legaladvice #legal #legaleducationindia #legaleducation #legalremedies

LLB Guide, Study Guide LLB 2025, LLB First Semester Guide, Study Guide LLB, LLB Self Study Guide, cuet pg LLB Guide

remoteness of damages in tort, remoteness of damages in contract law, remoteness of damages, remoteness of damage law of tort, foreseeability in tort law, foreseeable meaning, wagon mound case, wagon mound case 1 and 2, wagon mound

This video explains:
• What is foreseeability and remoteness of damage
• What is remoteness of damage in tort law
• What is the test of directness in remoteness of damage
• Key case laws in India and abroad
• Real examples and difference between remoteness under tort and Indian Contract Act
• Easy explanation of remoteness of damage meaning, notes and concepts as seen in PPTs, PDFs, and bare acts

🎓 Ideal for LLB, CLAT, UPSC Law Optional, and Judiciary Aspirants.

remoteness of damage,remoteness of damage example,foreseeability and directness,wagon mound case,remoteness of damages under law of torts,remoteness of damages case laws in India,remoteness of damage in tort meaning,notes on tort law foreseeability,polemis case,remoteness of damage pdf,test of directness in torts,foreseeability in negligence,remoteness of damages in indian contract act,tort law llb 2nd semester

✅ 5 Most Important Questions & Answers

Q1: What is the principle of remoteness of damage in tort law?
A: It limits liability to only those damages that are a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s act.

Q2: What was decided in the Wagon Mound case (1961)?
A: The court held that a defendant is not liable for damage that was not reasonably foreseeable, establishing foreseeability as the key test.

Q3: What is the test of directness in tort law?
A: Under the Polemis case, the defendant was liable for all direct consequences of an act, even if they were not foreseeable.

Q4: Is foreseeability or directness the preferred test today?
A: Foreseeability is now the dominant principle, especially after the Wagon Mound judgment.

Q5: How does remoteness differ under tort law and Indian contract law?
A: In torts, foreseeability guides liability; in contract law, Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act defines it based on natural and probable consequences.

✅ Example from Movies/OTT

🎬 Scene Suggestion: Suits (Netflix/Amazon Prime)
• Harvey Specter arguing a case of negligence where the fire in the office building wasn’t anticipated → Example of remoteness.

📺 YouTube:
• Search: “Wagon Mound Explained – Law of Torts” on Legal YouTube Channels like The LLB Guide.

📱 Instagram
• Search: #WagonMoundCase, #RemotenessOfDamage, #ForeseeabilityTort

Remoteness of damage, a key concept in tort law, dictates that a defendant is only liable for the foreseeable consequences of their negligent act. The landmark case of Wagon Mound established the principle of foreseeability, emphasizing that liability is limited to damages that a reasonable person would have anticipated.

Additionally, the test of directness, while sometimes considered, generally falls under the umbrella of foreseeability, suggesting that liability may extend to consequences directly stemming from the negligent act, regardless of whether they were foreseeable, but also within the scope of what was foreseeable.

Here's a more detailed breakdown:

1. Foreseeability:
Definition:
Foreseeability means that the damage suffered by the plaintiff was reasonably predictable or anticipated by a reasonable person in the defendant's position.

Wagon Mound (1961):
This case established that damages are only recoverable if they were a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of duty. In this case, the defendant was found not liable for the extensive fire damage because a reasonable person would not have foreseen the possibility of a fire spreading from spilled oil, even though the oil spill itself was foreseeable.

Impact of Foreseeability:
The principle of foreseeability limits liability, ensuring that defendants are not held responsible for unforeseeable and potentially catastrophic damages resulting from their actions.

2. Directness:
Definition:
The test of directness suggests that a defendant is liable for all the direct consequences of their act, even if those consequences were not reasonably foreseeable.

Polemis (1921):
This case, often cited in discussions of directness, involved a ship that was damaged by fire after a plank was dropped, causing a chain reaction….