The damage must be of such a nature that the damage suffered by the plaintiff must be such as the defendant could reasonably foresee.
If the type of damage is foreseeable, then it is irrelevant whether the magnitude of the damage suffered and the manner in which it occurred were foreseeable or not. The company was not held liable as the plaintiff’s injury was not foreseeable.
The general rule is that the defendant is responsible for his own acts and when the plaintiff suffers from the act of a third party that the defendant could not foresee, he will not be liable.
But when the defendant could have reasonably foreseen the intervention of a third party, he will be responsible for the damage caused by it.
In Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. Sukhbir Singh, [AIR 1974 All. 113]the driver of a jeep owned by Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. left him on a crowded road with the ignition keys in the jeep because he found the road blocked by a crowd.
He went to the police station. Meanwhile, someone drove the jeep and caused an accident in which Sukhbir Singh was injured. It was argued that the driver was negligent in leaving the ignition keys in the jeep.
When the danger created by the defendant is fully appreciated by the plaintiff and he willingly puts himself in that danger, he cannot recover damages and when the risk is foreseeable but the plaintiff remains indifferent, he may be guilty of contributory negligence.