Explain remoteness of damage and the foreseeability test.

• A. Damages must be foreseeable as a consequence of the breach; the test is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the kind of damage.
• B. Only actual damages that occur within a year are recoverable.
• C. Remoteness requires exact prediction of the damages.
• D. There is no foreseeability requirement in negligence.

Answer: (A)

Remoteness of damage in negligence rests on whether the harm that follows a breach is the kind of damage a reasonable person would foresee as a probable result of that breach. The key idea is foreseeability of the type of damage, not an exact prediction of every detail.

The correct statement captures this: damages must be foreseeable as a consequence of the breach, and the test is whether a reasonable person would have foreseen the kind of damage. In practice, if a reasonable person would anticipate that breach could cause that kind of harm, the damage is not too remote. You don’t have to predict the exact way the harm will happen or its precise extent—just that the harm falls within a kind of damage that could be foreseen. This is the standard test from cases like Wagon Mound.

The other options miss the core idea: suggesting a time limit (within a year) relates to limitation periods, not remoteness; requiring exact prediction overstates what must be foreseen; and saying there’s no foreseeability requirement contradicts the fundamental rule of negligence.