Negligence - breach, causation

Question 1

Res ipsa Loquitur

Answer 1

P must show that

(i) the accident causing the injury is a type that would not normally occur unless someone was negligent, and
(ii) the negligence is attributable to defendant (i.e., this type of accident ordinarily happens because of the negligence of someone in defendant’s position).

Effect: plaintiff has made a prima facie case and no directed verdict may be given for defendant. Plaintiff can still lose, however, if the inference of negligence is rejected by the trier of fact.

Question 2

Three situations for Actual Cause for Negligence

Answer 2

1. “But For” test: used when several acts combine to cause the injury (each insufficient to cause the injury alone).
2. Joint causes- Substantial factor test: Where several causes bring about injury, and any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury, D’s conduct is the cause in fact if it was a substantial factor in causing the injury.
3. Alternative Causes approach: two acts, only one of which causes injury, but it is not known which one. The burden of proof shifts to Ds, and each must show that his negligence is not the actual cause

Question 3

Proximate Cause= foreseeable. (limitation of liability)

Answer 3

• Direct Cause case: uninterrupted chain of events from negligent act to P’s injury. D liable for all foreseeable harmful results.
• Indirect cause case: After D’s negligent act -> an affirmative intervening force (foreseeable or unforeseeable) -> results in P’s injury (foreseeable result, unforeseeable result)
• Foreseeable force? Normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the D’s negligent act.
• Unforeseeable force? Independent actions. (ex: (i) negligent acts of third persons, (ii) crimes and intentional torts of third persons, and (iii) acts of God_

Question 4

Foreseeable Intervening Forces, Foreseeable Results

Answer 4

D liable.

Question 5

Unforeseeable Intervening Forces, Foreseeable Results

Answer 5

D liable where his neg. increased the risk of a foreseeable harmful result.
- This rule does not apply where the unforeseable intervening force was a crime or intentional tort of a third person. (Thus, applies for act of God, or 3rd person’s negligence)

Question 6

Foreseeable Intervening Forces, Unforeseeable Results

Answer 6

D not liable.

Question 7

Unforeseeable Intervening Forces, Unforeseeable Results

Answer 7

D not liable. (Here, superseding forces break the causal connection).

Question 8

Eggshell-skull P rule

Answer 8

D is liable for all damages, including aggravation of an existing condition, even if the extent or severity of the damages was unforeseeable.