Academic

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.

Pollock was an advocate of this test of remoteness. He opined, in cases Rigby v. Hewitt and Greenland v. Chaplin, that the “liability of the defendant is only for those consequences which could have been foreseen by a reasonable man placed in the circumstances of the wrongdoer.”

But here we must note that it would not be a sufficient defence in itself to say that the defendant did not foresee the consequences. Instead, it would be for the Court to decide, upon the standards of reasonability, whether the consequence should have been foreseen by the defendant or not.

This test of reasonable foresight lost its popularity to the test of directness. But, as we shall see later, it managed to regain currency among jurists. 

Test of Directness

According to the test of directness, a person is liable for all the direct consequences of his act, whether he could have foreseen them or not; because consequences which directly follow a wrongful act are not too remote.

Further, according to this test, if the defendant could foresee any damage, he will be liable for all the direct consequences of his wrongful act. To understand this particular test of remoteness better, it would suffice to look at the Re Polemis Case.

Re Polemis and Furness, Wilthy & Co.

This case, popularly referred to as the Re Polemis Case, was the landmark case on the test of directness. The Courts of Appeal held the test of reasonable foresight to be the relevant test whereas later the Privy Council upheld the test of directness. 

The relevant facts of the case are that the defendants chartered a ship to carry cargo. The cargo included a quantity of Petrol and/or Benzene in tins. There was a leakage in the tins and some oil was collected in a hold of the ship. Now, owing to the negligence of the defendant’s servants, a plank fell in the hold and consequently sparks were generated. As a result of those sparks, the ship was totally destroyed by fire.

In this case, the Privy Council held the owners of the ship entitled to recover the loss, although such a loss could not have been foreseeably seen by the defendants. It was held that since the fire (and the subsequent destruction of the ship) was a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence, it was immaterial whether the defendant could have reasonably foreseen it or not. As per Scrutton, L.J.:

“Once an act is negligent, the fact that its exact operation was not foreseen is immaterial.”

Test of directness establishes liability based on the direct consequences of the act whereas reasonable foreseeability is concerned with:

The consequences of a wrongful act that  could be foreseen by a reasonable man, then they are not too remote. If on the other hand, a reasonable man could not have foreseen the consequences, then they are too remote. And, an individual shall be liable only for the consequences which are not too remote i.e. which could be foreseen.

Source: ipleaders, toppr

Thank you