The Doctrine of Remoteness refers “if any consequences have been happened by the help of any wrongful act, it may be endless” If the wrongful act has been done, the defendant was not liable “ad infinitum” (continue forever; without limit) for all the consequences which were made up by the act. The defendant is only liable for all. Those consequences which were made not too remote or proximate. For the testing of remoteness, there are two ways: (i) Test of reasonable foresight (ii) Test of Directness.
Test 1- According to this test, the defendant is liable only for that wrongful act which was foreseen by a reasonable person because it is not too remote.
Test 2- According to that test, the defendant is liable only for the direct consequences which he made directly by that wrongful act.
Smith V. London Southwestern Railway Co.
Due to the negligence of the railway, the heap of dry grass which was collected on that compound caught fire & due to wind, the plaintiff cottage got to burn down. Here, the defendant was held liable due to the test of directiveness applied. But later after some time, Privy Council rejects that test directiveness & declares that test irrelevant.