Affirmative Defenses Case Law

Question 1

Murray v. Harney

Answer 1

The intervening and superseding causation doctrine relieves a defendant is relieved from liability when an independent and unforeseen event occurs between the defendant’s wrongful conduct and the plaintiff’s harm.

Question 2

(Established in Murray v. Harney) Intervening and superseding causation doctrine:

Answer 2

The doctrine applies when the intervening act was: (1) sufficient by itself to produce the plaintiff’s harm; (2) not reasonably foreseeable to the defendant; and (3) not itself a direct result of the defendant’s wrongful conduct

Question 3

Zhang and Fritsch

Answer 3

An errant firework may qualify as an intervening and superseding cause so long as the three elements (of the doctrine) are met

Question 4

Zafft v. Price

Answer 4

A mechanical malfunction itself can be in intervening factor in a case so long as the malfunction happened after the defendant’s negligent acts before the harm was caused. So long as the three elements from the I+S causation doctrine are met, and the intervening act was not reasonably foreseeable to the Defendant

Question 5

Spencer v. Mallikarjunan

Answer 5

The I+S Causation doctrine extends to sudden incapacitation in air crash cases so long as all three elements are met. If the sudden incapacitation was reasonably foreseeable, though, then sudden incapacitation cannot qualify under I+S

Question 6

Simien v. Shelton

Answer 6

An assumption of risk defense cannot be proven if the plaintiff doesn’t assume a risk arising out of the defendant’s conduct unless the plaintiff knows of the existence of the risk and appreciates its unreasonable character

Question 7

Ornstein v. Smough

Answer 7

A layperson without any pilot training is not capable of assuming the risk of negligent piloting

Question 8

Vendrick v. Alonne

Answer 8

If the deceased had pilot training, they may be capable of appreciating with such a risk, even if they were not capable of legally flying the aircraft at issue.

Question 9

Sage v. Pontiff

Answer 9

When the deceased came to appreciate a risk immediately prior to their death, when they can no longer avoid the risk, the defendant cannot use the appreciation to then exonerate themself under assumption of risk

Question 10

O’Neil v. Margit

Answer 10

Even if the plaintiff-spouse understood and appreciated the risks of the defendant’s conduct, the defendant cannot be exonerated. It must be proven the the decedent knew of and appreciated the risk for the defendant to prevail under assumption of risk defense.