Negligence - Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause) - Assessing the Scope of Risk Flashcards
Hughes v. Lord Advocate
Manner
If a general type of harm is foreseeable, a defendant does not have to foresee the manner in which the harm occurred to be liable. Post officers negligently left a hole unattended and boys got hurt because a gas from a kerosene lamp exploded.
Restatement (Third)
Determing Risk
The general type of harm caused by the risk is determined by the factfinder’s common sense and judgment.
Details for Manner of Harm
Some courts expect defendants to foresee many details about the manner in which the harm occurred. In these cases, the defendant isn’t liable if he didn’t foresee the manner in which the harm occurred, even if he should have foresee the harm
Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co.
New and Unforeseen Factor
A defendant can’t be liable for harm if it’s caused by a new and unforeseen factor. The cover of a vat fell into molten liquid an exploded after a minute, which was unforeseen.
Hammerstein v. Jean Development West
Extent of Harm
Proximate cause can be establish even if the extent of the harm was unforeseeable. Plaintiff twisted is ankle and got a blister on his foot after walking downstairs because Defendant’s fire alarm negligently went off. The blister developed a gangrenous infection because Plaintiff had diabetes.
Thin-Skull Rule
If the plaintiff is more vulnerable than the Defendant knows, the defendant is liable for any extra unexpected harm that occurs because of Plaintiff’s vulnerability. This is an exception the general rule
Thin-Skull Rule
Aggravating a Preexisting Condition
Harris v. ShopKo Store, Inc.
The defendant is liable for any aggravation he caused to a preexisting condition, even when the aggravation was unforeseeable.
Thin-Skull Rule
Triplett v. River Region Medical Corp.
The defendant’s act must be one that would harm a typical person or the defendant must be at fault because he knew or should have known about the Plaintiff’s condition.
