Right, and when that rain water causes a letter you were writing to your aunt in Georgia to be destroyed telling her not to marry Mr. Butler because he is a gold digger and the wedding goes on as planned, later ending in a divorce that costs your aunt half of her estate, should the rock thrower pay for what the aunt lost in the other contract as well?
Right. There's a continuum from damages that certainly should be the responsibility of the wrongdoer to damages that are too indirect. It comes down to whether this is a case akin to lost profits (which would be covered) or acts of a third party (which wouldn't unless they're forseeable, which these aren't).
"For the breach of an obligation arising from contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this Code, is the amount which will compensate the party aggrieved for all the detriment proximately caused thereby, or which, in the ordinary course of things, would be likely to result therefrom."
Honestly, I don't know which side of the line this case falls on.
