Tort Law - duty of care: remoteness (to Lawyers or law students)?

Question

In order to have a valid case, a plantiff must establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) breached that duty; (3) by so doing caused damage to the plaintiff; and (4) that damage must not have been too remote.

What does it mean when it says the "damage must not have been too remote" - what is an example of this?

Does the test of remoteness depend on what is reasonable foreseeable??

Cheers Richard. Thanks for clarifying

Answer 1

It means that the damage must be closely connected to the defendants act.

You can't sue for damage that was caused only by some remote chain of events that can be somehow linked back to the defendants act.

For example, John and Jane fight. John puts Jane in the hospital, and she misses work as a shipping clerk. Because she misses work, a package doesn't go out and Bob loses a customer. The damage - Bobs lost profit - is far too remote to Johns act - hitting his wife - for there to be a case.

Richard

Answer 2

Hello,

In response to this question, Tort Law - duty of care: remoteness (to Lawyers or law students)?, I can say you that this site http://inquirelawyers.com might help you in your situation

As you described; "In order to have a valid case, a plantiff must establish that the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) breached that duty; (3) by so doing caused damage to the plaintiff; and (4) that damage must not have been too remote. What does it mean when it says the "damage must not have been too remote" - what is an example of this?" I hope it might help you.

Best of Luck :)

Answer 3

The very basic answer is that the breach of duty must relatively directly caused the damages (i.e. damages must not have been too remote from the breach of the duty that caused the damages). Another way law professors like to say it, is were the consequences foreseeable for the person that breached their duty. The more foreseeable the damage, the less remote the damage is to the breach.

For example, if a dog owner is involved in an incident in which the dog bites a person walking down the same sidewalk, is this negligent? Well, dog owner has a duty to pedestrians to walk his dog if the dog is safe with people who may be walking on the same sidewalk. If the dog had a history of biting pedestrians, and the dog owner knew this, the dog owner breached his duty of care, because he could have foreseen the dog biting "another" pedestrian. The breach of duty led directly to cause the bite injury to the pedestrian.

This is a very basic example of negligence - duty, beach of duty, causation, and damages.

The duty of care varies for different occupations. For example the duty of care for a doctor is to perform his medical responsibilities as other doctors would in the same specialty in the same geographic area. (For medical malpractice in CA, there is the additional statutory imposition that another doctor must state under oath that the first doctor failed to perform his medical responsibilities properly.)

There are many different Tort scenarios, so please do consult an Attorney if you have more specific questions.

This answer was provided as a general statement of the law of Torts in California, and not specific legal advice.

Answer 4

Remoteness Of Damage

Answer 5

of course,apart from an loco parentis. any time anyone takes on a responsibility for others role, it is there (managers of employees or students, or clients even) The level of care is related to need of the person you are responsible for. So in each case, a level of assessment is needed. eg a 5 year old needs more than a 15 year old and implicitly, some one of lower physical or mental capacity needs more than an equivelent able person. how would it not be so ? and it does not end until you hand off that responsibility to someone who accepts it. Care home workers have this problem when their shift ends, and no one comes to take over, but they need to get home to look after their children / pick them up etc. - catch-22 (management failure, but person still left 'holding the baby' )