DAMAGES

BY

GAYATHRI PRAHARSHITHA. K

SAP ID – 00000441047

Submitted to – Prof. Silla Ramsundar

Table of Contents:
1. Introduction

2. Damages

3. Damages recoverable once only

4. Damages awarded as a lump only

5. Kinds of damages

6. Mitigation of damages

7. Damages in personal injury actions

8. Damages for destruction of or damages to property

9. Damages in ‘Lieu of Injunction’

10. Measures of damages

11. Remoteness of damages

12. Conclusion

13. Bibliography
INTRODUCTION:
Damages are monetary awards. In in a legal sense, “damages” refers to
monetary compensation that is claimed by a person or awarded by a court in
a civil action to a person who has been injured or suffered loss because of
the wrongful conduct of another party. The Supreme Court of Canada has
held: “Damages are a monetary payment awarded for the invasion of a right
at common law”. (Canson Enterprises Ltd. v. Boughton & Co. [1991] 3 S.C.R.
534 at para. 39, per La Forest J.)
The purpose of damages is, in a tort action, to restore an injured party to the
position he was in before being harmed, and, in a contract action, to place
the innocent party in the position he would have been in had the contract
been performed. Consequently, damages are generally remedial rather than
preventive or punitive.

DAMAGES:
Compensation for causing loss or injury through negligence or a deliberate
act, or a court’s estimate or award of a sum as a fine for breach of a contract
or of a statutory duty.
DAMAGES RECOVERABLE ONCE ONLY:
DAMAGES ARE AWARDED ON ONCE AND FOR ALL BASIS
The damage can be recovered for once only. A claimant cannot bring second
claim just for the reason that he thinks that the injury is a more serious.
EXCEPTION WHERE TWO DISTINCT RIGHTS ARE VOILATED – there two suits
can be brought
EXCEPTION WHERE INJURY IS CONTINUING – in case the tort is continuing
the claimant can bring in multiple suits as each action gives rise to a damage.

DAMAGE AWARDED AS A LUMP SUM:

Lump sum damages are awarded at the end of the case not during the trial
for the damages suffered and not paid in phase basis.
This helps the claimant to have a certain sum of money and even helps the
defendant to close the books and settle all accounts in one go.
KINDS OF DAMAGES:
a) Contemptuous Damages
This is an absurd(small/derisory) amount of money which court
awards in cases where the judge feels that the legal right was violated
but it wasn’t a big claim.
b) Nominal damages
In these type of damages, the damage awarded is not much but not
equivalent or less than contemptuous damage.
c) Compensatory Damages
They are awarded in respect of the damages suffered by the claimant.
RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM is the basic principle used to award
damages which assess the amount of damage done the amount
necessary for restoration to original position.
This rule is described in LIVINGSTONE v RAWYARDS COAL CO. where
the court assessed the position before and after the statement was
made and damage is assessed accordingly.
R. (LUMBA) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HOME DEPARTMENT – in
this case the claimant was unlawfully imprisoned under a law but
could legally imprisoned under the same law, so the court didn’t
award any damage as they suffered no damage as they could be
imprisoned anyways
Distinction between general and special damages used to award
compensatory damages. The special damages were awarded for
damages suffered before trial and special for damages suffered during
or after the trial. They are no more in use as its difficult to distinguish
them.
d) Exemplary Damage
These are awarded to punish the defendant to deter him from
performing the same kind of behavior again. A claim for exemplary
damage need to be pleaded.
ROOKES v BARNARD – in this case the practice of awarding exemplary
damage was limited and affirmed in the case CASSELL v BROOME by
lords.
these damages can be awarded in the two cases
 i) where any government servant is involved in oppressive, arbitrary
or unconstitutional manner as in the case HUCKLE v MONEY where
the search warrant was issued against john Wilkes and detained
him for 6 hours and used him poorly so he was awarded 300
pounds, but this is not absolute position it doesn’t apply to public
bodies not exercising executive functions but does cover police
officials.
ii) And in the cases where defendant sought to profit by his tort.
e) Aggravated Damage
These damages are usually awarded in case where claimant suffered
mental distress due to malicious or insulting manner. They are kind off
punitive damages and can be said type of exemplary damages.
This damage can be awarded in the situation where there is a case of
i) Trespass to person
ii) Trespass to land
iii) Deceit – fraud or misrepresentation
iv) Malicious prosecution
v) Misfeasance in a public office
vi) Misuse of private info
vii)Discrimination
viii) Where defendants behave badly
Aggravated damages are usually awarded where there hurt to
feelings so according to this principle where the claimant is an
organization won’t be able to claim these damages.
In case RICHARDSON v HOWIE court ruled that aggravated damages
don’t need to be claimed separately they should be part of general
damages only.

f) Gain Based Damages

These are generally made to deprive the defendant of the gains he
made out of the tort. They are different from compensatory damages
as they are restricted till the amount of loss suffered. They can be
somewhat related to exemplary damages where exemplary damages
are demanded for profit.
Claimant cannot demand both compensatory and gain based damages
for single tort they have to choose one of them.
 Types:
i) License fee damage – in this claimant can claim damage for the use
of property by the defendant, he is entitled to this type of damage
even when he has not suffered the loss.
ii) Disgorgement Damages – these damages are different from
License fee damage as in this the defendant can be asked to pay
the entire sum of profit made rather than a reasonable fee. It can
be awarded in the case were the defendant convers the property
and sell it for the amount greater than the market value as seen in
KUWAIT AIRWAYS CORP. v IRAQI AIRWAYS CO.
g) VINDICATORY DAMAGES
Vindicatory damages are usually awarded in the case where
constitutional rights are violated.
MITIGATION OF DAMAGE:
The claimant is not entitled to recover damage where the loss could have
avoided by taking reasonable steps on his part.
The steps to approve mitigation of damage:
a) Claimant is held liable for an objective standard
b) The standard of reasonableness is not high one
c) There is no duty to mitigate
d) Doctrine of mitigation applies to all torts
e) Cost incurred to mitigate the damage is recoverable.
f) Whole of the loss that could have mitigated will have to be borne by
claimant.
g) Unreasonable conduct by claimant is only relevant up to the extent till
it would have made difference to the damage.
h) Close relation btw doctrine of mitigation and doctrine of contributory
negligence

DAMAGE IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTIONS:

a. HEADS OF DAMAGE
b. Deduction for the benefit received
Claimant is not entitled to those damages for the loss which has
already been nullified in some way. For this principle we have to see
that the benefit is in causation of the event of wrongdoing by the
defendant.
i. Receipts from private source
 The receipts received by the claimant due to the injury suffered
because of the wrongdoing is to be deducted while calculating the
damages.
Exceptions are: voluntary payments received by the claimant from
third party out of love. and insurance money received (as it was
insured by paying premium)
Sick pay and pension pay received is out of the exception.
ii. Social Security Benefits
The money received under social security benefit is to be deducted.
c. PRE-JUDGEMENT INTEREST ON DAMAGES
There Is considerable time between payment of damages and
occurrence of torts so until the interest is not paid for that time
claimant will be under compensated. So now its mandatory to pay
interest until and unless court doesn’t give relief.
d. PROVISIONAL DAMAGES
This is used to award provisional damages with a power to claim more
in case of disease.
e. Periodical Payments
the court can award periodical payments in case where it feels like and
its unlikely to be passed in cases where the damages are very high.
The court must be satisfied that there will be secure payment in
future.
Payment is related to retail prices index but in THOMPSTONE v
TAMESIDE GLOSSOP ACUTE SERVICES NHS TRUST THE INDEXATION
was related to care price.
f. STRUCTURED SETTLEMENTS
In the case of structured settlements, the insurer usually invests the
money in some scheme and its received by claimant in parts and can
cross the life span of claimant and is insulated from effects of
inflation.
i) DAMAGES FOR DESTRUCTION OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY
The principle of RESTITUTIO IN INTEGRUM (restore to original position)
is applied in most cases.
a. DESTRUCTION OF CHATTEL
Generally, in of complete damage to property such amount is
awarded which can allow him to buy a replacement in the market at
 the price prevailing on the date of destruction. Claimant can recover
damage for consequential loss which are not too remote.
b. DAMAGES TO CHATTEL
The amount awarded is the cost incurred to repair the damage to the
property.
Claimant is even entitled to the loss suffered due to the non-
availability of chattel for use during the time of repair. Claimant can
even recover the profit which is lost due to non-availability of chattel.
He can even claim cost for hiring a substitute.
c. LAND AND FIXURES
The cost of reinstatement is usually awarded in the case of damage to
land, which can be higher than the value of the property. Loss of rent
or profits can be recovered.
d. THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT
Due to rapidly inflation in 1970’s this principle arose that the date of
assessment of loss would the date from which the repair can be
undertaken.
e. BENEFITS RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF THE TORT
The defendant cannot rely on the insurance for the damages awarded
until and unless he has the right over the policy.

DAMAGE IN LIEU OF INJUNCTION:

Where the damages are awarded for the future consequences because of
not awarding Injunction.
The cases where injunction is not issued:
i) Where it would be oppressive to the defendant
ii) Injury to claimant is small
iii) Injury is capable to be estimated in money
iv) Injury can be compensated by money.

MEASURES OF DAMAGES:
Measure of damages is a way to compute damages that are to be awarded
to an injured person. In an action on a penal bond, the measure of damages
is compensation for the actual loss, not exceeding the established penalty.
In a contract, measure of damages is intended to place the injured party in
the same situation as if the contract was performed. Non-compliance of the
terms of a contract and actual loss are the key factors for the measure of
damages. In an action of tort, measure of damages is the formula that
determines a fair compensation for a plaintiff's injuries sustained along with
the compensation for any pain and suffering that the plaintiff had gone
through.
GENERAL AND SPECIAL DAMAGES:
General damages represent the types of damages that can’t easily be
assigned a monetary value, such as pain and suffering, loss of
consortium and emotional trauma. There is no evidence, such as bills or
receipts, of a specific dollar amount, but they are losses for which the
plaintiff deserves compensation nonetheless.
Special damages, by contrast, can be assigned a specific monetary value
because these are compensation for the expenses you incurred as a result
of the accident. Special damages include things like medical bills and lost
wages. These are your “out of pocket” expenses.
One easy way to remember the difference between general and special
damages is to think of them this way – general damages are the damages
that can “generally” be attributed to the defendant’s negligence, such as
the pain and suffering that all accident victims suffer. Special damages, on
the other hand, are unique (or “special”) to you because no other plaintiff
will have the precise amount of financial losses as you do.

PROSPECTIVE AND CONTINUING DAMAGES:

Prospective damages are future damages that can to a moderately sufficient
extent or degree be expected to occur. It is usually granted on the basis of
the facts pleaded and proved by the plaintiff. When prospective damages
are allowed to the injured party, they must be such as are in reasonable
contemplation of the parties and capable of being ascertained with a
reasonable degree of certainty.
Continuing damages. Those which are continued at different times, or which 
endure from one time to another. If a person goes upon successive day's an
d tramples the grass of the plaintiff, he commits continuing damages; or if o
ne commits a trespass to the possession, and it is in fact injurious to him wh
o has the reversion or remainder, this will be continuing damages. In this last 
case the person in possession may have an action of trespass against the wr
ong doer to his possession, and the reversioner has an action against him for 
an injury to the reversion.
DAMAGES FOR MENTAL AND NERVOUS SHOCK:
Assessment of damages in this area is difficult task for courts. Mental
perturbation or emotional excitement described as worry is not regarded as
injury in the legal sense of the term and it cannot constitute a cause of
action for damages. But a shock is identifiable physical or mental lesion not
by physical impact but through mind. Nervous shock is more than mere
fright. It is distinct and substantial lesion to the mind suffered through the
medium of one or more of the senses, having discernible manifestations.
Injury to health due to nervous shock is thus a bodily injury for which
damages may be claimed, provided the consequences are not too remote.
The cause of action arises by breach of the ordinary duty to take reasonable
care to avoid infliction of personal injuries. In deciding such cases the
standard to be applied is that of an ordinary normal healthy person and not
that of a supersensitive psychopath.
It is not necessary for a claim that one’s presence is a must within the impact
zone. What is necessary is that the victim must have experienced the
accident with his own unaided senses as distinct from hearing or reading
about it afterwards and this would include watching the accident on
television.

REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES:

Remoteness of damage is the

term that is used to indicate
that although the carelessness
of a
person has been a cause of the
harm suffered by the plaintiff,
nevertheless the harm is so far
removed, is so remote, from
the wrongdoing that the
wrongdoer should not be
legally liable
for it. It is not for any harm
that has been caused by
carelessness, that the careless
person is
liable. It is only for that harm
that is sufficiently close, or not
too remote, that a careless
person is liable.
Unfortunately
Remoteness of damage is the term that is used to indicate that although the
carelessness of a person has been a cause of the harm suffered by the
plaintiff, nevertheless the harm is so far removed, is so remote, from the
wrongdoing that the wrongdoer should not be legally liable for it. It is not
for any harm that has been caused by carelessness, that the careless person
is liable. It is only for that harm that is sufficiently close, or not too remote,
that a careless person is liable.
 A few elaborations of cases would perhaps make it more clear.
1.Scott v. Shepherd:
‘A’ threw a lighted squib into a crowd, it fell upon ‘X’. In order to prevent injury
to himself, X did the same thing and it fell upon Y. Y in his turn did the same
thing and it then fell on B, as a result of which B lost one of his eyes. A was
held liable to B. His act was the proximate cause of damage even though his
act was farthest from the damage in so far as the acts X and Y had intervened
in between.

2.Haynes v. Harwood

The defendant’s servants negligently left a house van unattended in a

crowded street. The throwing of stones at the horses by a child, made them
bolt and a policeman was injured in an attempt to stop them with a view to
rescuing the woman and children on the road.

One of the defences pleaded by the defendant was remoteness of

consequences i.e. the mischief of the child was the proximate cause and the
negligence of the servants was a remote cause.

General illustration:

A person is going driving on a road, he hits a girl on the footpath, the girl
tumbles on a bicycle breaks her finger, the bicycle man loses his balance and
gets in front of a fuel tanker, the tanker to save the man on the bicycle steers
left but unfortunately hits the railing to a river bridge and falls into it, the lock
of the fuel tank breaks and the oil spills into the river, the driver with the truck
drowns.

In the above case:

1.the girl being hit is the direct damage and it is the direct damage caused by
the act of A
2.the damage caused to the cyclist is proximately caused by the falling of the
girl and is remote to the act of A

3.the damage caused to the truck driver and the loss of material (fuel and
fuel tank) is remote to the act of A and proximate to the act of the cyclist.
And it is to be noted that the accountability to negligence is made on the
assumption that the person is aware of the fact that rash driving can lead to
fatalities. (though the expected and the actual results might not be the
same).
Now, the starting point of any rule of the remoteness of damage is the familiar
idea that a line must be drawn somewhere. It would be unacceptably harsh
for every tort feasor to be responsible for all the consequences which he has
caused.

Certainly, the question of where to draw the line on recover-ability of

consequential losses cannot be answered by a mathematically precise
formula. Judges have used their discretion from time to time, and in that
process, two formulas have been highlighted:

1. The test of reasonable foresight

2. The test of directness
The Test of Reasonable Foresight:
If the consequences of a wrongful act 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.

The Test of Directness:

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

CONCLUSION:
Damages are the monetary compensation which is awarded by the Court to
the plaintiff so that he can be enabled to make up for the loss which he has
suffered because of the tort committed by another person. There are
several types of damages and the calculation of damages depends on
various factors such as the nature and extent of the injury, the relation
between the plaintiff and the defendant etc. The calculation of damages is
also different in different cases such as in the case of death of a person the
interest and multiplier theories while for calculating damages while in case
of shortening of life span the social status of the person is not taken into
account.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/damages-law

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/damages.html

https://www.studocu.com/en/document/northumbria-university/tort-law-ft-law-plus/lecture-
notes/remoteness-of-damage-lecture-notes-3-pages/1359396/view

https://www.toppr.com/guides/legal-aptitude/law-of-torts/remoteness-of-damages-law-of-
tort/

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/continuing+damages

https://www.fnlawfirm.com/what-is-the-difference-between-special-and-general-damages/

https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prospective-damages/

https://www.academia.edu/34967504/DAMAGES_RECOVERABLE_ONCE_ONLY_1._D
AMAGES_ARE_AWARDED_ON_ONCE_AND_FOR_ALL_BASIS
https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/measure-of-damages/

https://blog.ipleaders.in/damages-under-tort-law/

Law of Torts- B.M. Gandhi- Fourth Edition

Winfield & Jolowicz Tort- Nineteenth edition- W.E. Peel & Goudkamp.

THE LAW OF TORT

A.J ©The law of Tort 7/12/13[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
REMOT E N E S S OF D A MAGE

Remoteness of damage is the term that is used to indicate that although the
carelessness of a
person has been a cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, nevertheless
the harm is so far
removed, is so remote, from the wrongdoing that the wrongdoer should
not be legally liable
for it. It is not for any harm that has been caused by carelessness, that the
careless person is
liable. It is only for that harm that is sufficiently close, or not too remote,
that a careless
person is liable.

THE LAW OF TORT

A.J ©The law of Tort 7/12/13[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
REMOT E N E S S OF D A MAGE
Remoteness of damage is the term that is used to indicate that although the
carelessness of a
person has been a cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, nevertheless
the harm is so far
removed, is so remote, from the wrongdoing that the wrongdoer should
not be legally liable
for it. It is not for any harm that has been caused by carelessness, that the
careless person is
liable. It is only for that harm that is sufficiently close, or not too remote,
that a careless
person is liable.

THE LAW OF TORT

A.J ©The law of Tort 7/12/13[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
REMOT E N E S S OF D A MAGE

Remoteness of damage is the term that is used to indicate that although the
carelessness of a
person has been a cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, nevertheless
the harm is so far
removed, is so remote, from the wrongdoing that the wrongdoer should
not be legally liable
for it. It is not for any harm that has been caused by carelessness, that the
careless person is
liable. It is only for that harm that is sufficiently close, or not too remote,
that a careless
person is liable.

THE LAW OF TORT

A.J ©The law of Tort 7/12/13[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
REMOT E N E S S OF D A MAGE

Remoteness of damage is the term that is used to indicate that although the
carelessness of a
person has been a cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, nevertheless
the harm is so far
removed, is so remote, from the wrongdoing that the wrongdoer should
not be legally liable
for it. It is not for any harm that has been caused by carelessness, that the
careless person is
liable. It is only for that harm that is sufficiently close, or not too remote,
that a careless
person is liable.

THE LAW OF TORT

A.J ©The law of Tort 7/12/13[Type text] [Type text] [Type text]
REMOT E N E S S OF D A MAGE

Remoteness of damage is the term that is used to indicate that although the
carelessness of a
person has been a cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, nevertheless
the harm is so far
removed, is so remote, from the wrongdoing that the wrongdoer should
not be legally liable
for it. It is not for any harm that has been caused by carelessness, that the
careless person is
liable. It is only for that harm that is sufficiently close, or not too remote,
that a careless
person is