Legal Definitions - remoteness of consequence

Remoteness of Consequence is a legal principle, primarily found in tort law, that limits a defendant'sliability for harm caused to another. It addresses the question of whether the harm suffered by the plaintiff is a sufficiently direct and foreseeable result of the defendant's actions.

Even if a defendant's conduct was negligent or wrongful, they will not be held legally responsible for all subsequent damages if those damages are considered too indirect, unforeseeable, or far removed from their original actions. The law requires a reasonably close and direct link, known as "proximate causation," between the defendant's conduct and the resulting harm. If the chain of events leading to the harm is too long, unusual, or unexpected, the consequence is deemed "remote," and the defendant may not be held liable for it.

Here are some examples illustrating this concept:

• Example 1: Unforeseeable Economic Loss

  A driver negligently runs a red light, causing a minor fender bender with another car. The occupant of the second car, although physically unharmed, is severely shaken by the incident. Due to the emotional distress, they miss a crucial, pre-scheduled meeting for a multi-million dollar business deal, which subsequently collapses. While the negligent driver would likely be liable for direct damages from the collision (e.g., car repairs, minor medical check-up costs), the loss of the multi-million dollar business deal would likely be considered too remote a consequence. The specific, massive financial loss from a missed meeting is an indirect and unforeseeable chain of events from the perspective of the negligent driver's actions.

• Example 2: Unusual Environmental Chain of Events

  A factory illegally discharges a small amount of non-toxic, biodegradable waste into a river. Weeks later, an unrelated, naturally occurring algal bloom in the river, exacerbated by unusually warm weather, causes a massive fish kill. A local restaurant that relies heavily on fresh river fish for its specialty dishes suffers significant financial losses due to the unavailability of its key ingredient. While the factory's discharge was wrongful, the massive fish kill and the restaurant's financial losses are likely too remote a consequence. The algal bloom was a natural event, and the factory's minor, non-toxic discharge was not the proximate cause of the widespread fish kill or the restaurant's specific economic hardship.

• Example 3: Indirect Property Damage

  A homeowner leaves a garden hose running, causing a small puddle to form on their driveway. Overnight, an unexpected and extremely rare cold snap causes the puddle to freeze into a patch of black ice. The next morning, a delivery driver slips on the ice, falls, and breaks an antique vase they were carrying for a client. While leaving the hose running might be considered negligent, the extreme cold snap and the specific damage to the antique vase might be deemed too remote from the initial act of leaving the hose running. The homeowner might not reasonably foresee such an unusual sequence of events leading to that specific damage.