Damages, Assessment of Damages and Remoteness of Damage — MCQs

All questions with answers and explanations

Read the full set here, or use the practice card above to test yourself one question at a time.

1. What does the principle of restitutio in integrum mean in the context of assessing damages?

   • The plaintiff must return any benefit received from the defendant
   • As far as money can achieve it, the plaintiff should be restored to the position they would have been in had the tort not occurred (correct answer)
   • Damages can only be awarded in instalments
   • The defendant must personally apologise to the plaintiff

   Explanation. Restitutio in integrum is the general principle that damages should, as far as money can achieve it, restore the plaintiff to the position they would have occupied had the tort not been committed.

2. What are 'exemplary' or 'punitive' damages intended to do?

   • Simply compensate the plaintiff for actual pecuniary loss
   • Punish the defendant for particularly high-handed, malicious, or oppressive conduct, going beyond mere compensation (correct answer)
   • Cover the plaintiff's legal costs only
   • Compensate only for property damage, never personal injury

   Explanation. Exemplary (punitive) damages go beyond compensating the plaintiff — they are awarded to punish and deter particularly egregious, malicious, or oppressive conduct by the defendant.

3. What is the 'once and for all' rule regarding assessment of damages?

   • Damages must be paid within one calendar year of the judgment
   • Damages are assessed once, in a single lump sum, without provision for later reassessment even if the plaintiff's condition changes (correct answer)
   • Only the first court to hear a case may award damages
   • The plaintiff may file only one lawsuit in their lifetime

   Explanation. The 'once and for all' rule requires that damages be assessed in a single lump sum at the time of judgment, covering both past and anticipated future loss, without any later reopening of the assessment.

4. What was the 'directness' test for remoteness of damage, laid down in Re Polemis, and later rejected in the Wagon Mound?

   • A defendant is liable only for damage that was reasonably foreseeable
   • A defendant is liable for all damage that is a direct consequence of the negligent act, regardless of whether it was foreseeable (correct answer)
   • A defendant is never liable for any indirect consequences
   • A defendant is liable only if the damage occurred within 24 hours

   Explanation. Re Polemis held a defendant liable for all direct consequences of a negligent act, even unforeseeable ones — this was rejected in Wagon Mound in favour of a reasonable-foreseeability test.

5. In Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co (The Wagon Mound No. 1, 1961), why was the defendant not held liable for the fire damage?

   • Because the oil spill was not caused by the defendant's negligence at all
   • Because the outbreak of fire from the floating oil was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the oil spillage, even though it was a direct physical consequence (correct answer)
   • Because the plaintiff failed to prove any damage occurred
   • Because the claim was filed outside the limitation period

   Explanation. The Privy Council held that a negligent defendant is liable only for damage of a kind a reasonable person could foresee. Re Polemis is no longer good law.

6. What is the modern test for remoteness of damage established by the Wagon Mound?

   • A defendant is liable for all direct consequences of their act, foreseeable or not
   • A defendant is liable only for the kind of damage that a reasonable person in their position could have reasonably foreseen (correct answer)
   • A defendant is never liable for consequential damage
   • A defendant is liable only if damage occurs at the exact location of the negligent act

   Explanation. Wagon Mound established that liability for the consequences of a negligent act depends on whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the kind of damage that occurred — not merely whether it was a direct consequence.

7. What is the difference between 'general damages' and 'special damages'?

   • General damages are for losses that are not precisely quantifiable (e.g. pain and suffering); special damages are for specific, quantifiable pecuniary losses (e.g. medical bills, lost wages) (correct answer)
   • General damages apply only to contract cases; special damages apply only to tort cases
   • General damages are always higher in amount than special damages
   • There is no real difference — the terms are used interchangeably in all contexts

   Explanation. General damages compensate for losses not precisely calculable, such as pain and suffering or loss of amenity; special damages compensate for specific, quantifiable pecuniary losses like medical expenses and lost earnings.

8. Which of the following is an example of 'nominal damages'?

   • A large sum awarded to punish a particularly malicious defendant
   • A small, token sum awarded where the plaintiff's legal right was infringed but no substantial actual loss was suffered (correct answer)
   • Damages awarded to cover the plaintiff's entire future medical expenses
   • Damages doubled as a penalty for delay in payment

   Explanation. Nominal damages are a small, symbolic sum awarded to recognise that the plaintiff's legal right was violated, even though no substantial actual loss occurred (relevant to torts actionable per se).

9. An oil spill negligently caused by a ship's crew drifts to a nearby wharf. Under general conditions believed reasonably safe at the time, welding work continues nearby, and an unexpected ignition of the oil causes extensive fire damage. Applying Wagon Mound, is the shipping company liable for the fire damage?

   • Yes, automatically, since the oil spill was a direct cause of the fire
   • Not necessarily — liability depends on whether the fire was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the oil spill, not merely whether it was a direct consequence (correct answer)
   • No, because negligence requires proof of intent to cause fire specifically
   • Yes, but only if the crew acted with malice

   Explanation. Under Wagon Mound, liability turns on reasonable foreseeability of the kind of damage, not mere directness — if the fire was not reasonably foreseeable given the circumstances, the company would not be liable for it.

10. A plaintiff injured by a tort takes no reasonable steps to reduce his loss. In assessing damages, the court will:

    • Award the full loss, because the defendant took the risk
    • Refuse to compensate loss that he could have avoided (correct answer)
    • Double the damages as a penalty
    • Dismiss the claim entirely

    Explanation. The plaintiff has a duty to mitigate. He must take reasonable steps to reduce his loss and cannot recover for loss he could have avoided.