What problems arise over the concept of remoteness of damages?

Answer 1

The problem with damages being too remote is that once we accept the "but for" causation is not necessarily enough to create liability, things get a bit fuzzy and arbitrary. Famously, the Long Island Railroad was not liable when one of their conductors, trying to help a late passenger hop onto the moving train, knocked a package from his hands that turned out to contain fireworks, which exploded causing a concussion that knocked over a set of scales onto a lady named Palsgraf standing on the platform. If not for the conductor's action, Mrs. P. would not have been injured, true, but Judge Cardozo said her injuries were just too remote for the LIRR to be liable to her. Sure, they had a duty to protect her from harm while she was using their services but how could they have a duty to protect from something so bizarre and hard to foresee? Civil actions are basically brought to resolve disputes. "A" feels that she has been injured by some action or inaction of "B" so she sues him. Sometimes, a whole class of people has been injured and there are some pretty big class action suits. But there is a limit to what courts can do. This often comes up in the context of truly massive mass torts. Let's say a company discharges pollution into the Chesapeake Bay. The number of people injured, that is, who suffer damages is enormous: fisherman, sport fishing charter operations, all the hotels and restaurants and other businesses whose customers don't come to the area because of the pollution. The courts have been very frank about the practical need to draw a line somewhere -- and, in the example mentioned, they tend to draw it at fishermen, admitting that the decision is somewhat arbitrary, based more on practicality and public policy than legal theory. The others' damages are declared "too remote." The usual example they give us in law school refers to the legend that the great Chicago fire was started when Mrs. O'Leary cow kicked over a lantern. Is Mrs. O'Leary to be held liable for everything that burned? What's the point in finding her so, since she can't afford to repair the whole city? Indeed, fires have been difficult for the law generally since they are so affected by wind and weather. But, punitive damages notwithstanding, keep in mind that when the injury is to the public at large, the criminal law is supposed to kick in and take care of it, rather than the private enforcement of being made to pay damages in compensation for the injury caused.

Answer 2

In order to be held liable for damages in negligence or intentional tort, the damages usually have to be foreseeable. If you wet your walk before a freezing cold night, you would expect a person using the walk to slip and fall. If someone used your walk and was hit by a car whose driver lost control while drunk, you would not be liable. Or got hit by a meteorite.

Answer 3

Some problems that can arise over the concept of remoteness of damages include uncertainty in determining what losses are too remote to be recoverable, inconsistency in how courts apply the concept, and difficulty in proving causation for damages that are considered too remote. Additionally, the concept can lead to disputes over foreseeability of damages at the time of contracting.

Answer 4

the carelessness of a person has been a cause of the harm suffered by the plantiff.