One Mr. ‘X’ threw lighted squib into a crowded market yard. It fell near a person. He picked up the squib and threw it away in turn into the market. It fell on ‘Z’ and causes a serious injury to his eye. Can ‘Z’ sue Mr. ‘X’ or a person who picked up and threw or state from whom ‘Z’ can recover damages.
‘Z’ can sue Mr.’X’, who first threw the lighted squib in the market place, as he should have foreseen that it was dangerous to do so and that it would cause damage to someone. Since there is no remoteness of damage, X is liable to pay compensation to Y.
Loss or damage is said to be remote if the cause of such damage is not immediate and direct. When the two cannot be consecrated as ‘cause and effect’, then there is no liability, since the damage is too remote.
Essentials for Remoteness of Damage:
- There should be a breach of legal duty by the defendant.
- The loss or damage should be direct, immediate and a natural conse quence of the act.
- A person is liable for all the direct consequences of his act – whether a reasonable man would have foreseen them or not.
In the given case, there is breach of legal duty by X, as he threw a lighted squib in the market. He should have known that it was dangerous to do so and the loss to Z was a direct result of his act. Damage is not remote and hence, X is liable to pay damages to Z.
The facts in the given problem are the same as in a famous case Scott vs. Shepherd