Johnson v. Broomfield

In Johnson v. Broomfield, 153 Misc. 2d 113 [1991] the Court found that the defendant was at fault for causing the accident; however, when examining the issue of damages, the Court noted that it was constrained to "the natural and proximate consequences, and not the remote consequences of a wrongful act." (Id. at 114). New York Jurisprudence, Second Ed 116 states that when calculating the measure and elements of compensatory damages, a party's liability in tort cases are limited to reasonable and probable consequences of non-willful, non-intentional or non-malicious acts: "But except in cases of willful, intentional, or malicious acts, the damages for which a party is liable in tort are limited to such consequences of his act as may properly be said to be the reasonable and probable consequences." The Court in Johnson went on the state: A defendant is liable only for such damages as are the natural and direct or proximate consequences of his wrongful acts or omissions, and this rule is applicable to actions for breach of contract as well as to actions based upon a tort as is the situation in this case. The principle that damages are recoverable only for such injuries as flow directly from, and as the probable and natural result of, the wrong complained of, necessarily excludes all those consequences of the act which are remote and indirect. No one is answerable in law for all the remote consequences of his own acts or of the acts of another for whom he is responsible. Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co., 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928); Silvernail v. Hallenback, 33 Misc. 2d 83, 226 N.Y.S.2d 48 (Sup.Ct., Albany County, 1962), 36 N.Y.Jur.2d, Damages 13. In short, a party is entitled to recover damages for all injuries, and only such injuries, as are the direct, natural and proximate result of the tortuous conduct and, for only those damages that, in the ordinary course of events, can be said to have been foreseen, contemplated or expected by the parties. This Court finds, as a matter of law, that it would not have been foreseen, contemplated or expected by this defendant that an accident, wholly his fault, would result in the plaintiff having increased automobile insurance premiums and the Plaintiff's claim is therefore denied.