Negligence - Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause) - Intervening Persons or Forces Flashcards
Ask Two Questions
Did Defendant’s negligence risk the injuries suffered?
Was the intervening cause foreseeable?
Traditional Rule for Intervening Persons or Forces
The proximate cause of an injury is that which produces an injury in an unbroken sequence of events and without which the injury would not have happened.
When an Intervening Act Supersedes the Original Risk
An intervening act of a second tortfeasor should relieve the original tortfeasor only when the resulting harm is outside the scope of risk of the original tortfeasor
Marcus v. Staubs
Substantial Factor Doesn’t Relieve
If a tortfeasor’s negligence is a substantial factor in causing a harm, the intervening acts of third persons does not relieve the original tortfeasor of liability if those acts were foreseeable at the time the original tortfeasor acted negligently. An 18 year old gave minors beer and then refused to give them a ride home, so they stole a car and got into an accident.
Old Rule for Criminal or Intentional Intervening Acts
If another person deliberately caused harm, that would supersede the negligence of the original tortfeasor
New Rule for Criminal or Intentional Intervening Acts
Most courts today say that criminal acts are foreseeable and so within the scope of risk caused by the original tortfeasor.
Restatement (Third)
Force of Nature or Independant Act
When a force of nature or an independent act is also a factual cause of harm, the actor’s liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious.
Restatement (Third)
The Very Duty Rule
When an actor is found liable precisely because of the failure to adopt adequate precaution against the risk of harm of another’s acts or omissions, or by an extraordinary force of nature, there is no scope-of-liability limitation on the actor’s liability.
Delaney v. Reynolds
Suicide
A plaintiff’s suicide is not so extraordinary that it should not be foreseeable as a matter of law. Defendant negligently did not secure his gun, and Plaintiff got the gun and attempted suicide.
Traditional Rule
Suicide
Intentionally committing suicide was the legal cause of the suicide, unless the defendant’s negligence made then plaintiff not appreciate the self-destructive nature of suicide or unable to resist the impulse to commit suicide. The act is a superseding cause that makes the defendant free from liability.
Traditional Rule
Suicide Exceptions
Johnstone v. City of Albuquerque
Most courts use the traditional rule but allow for two exceptions
- The defendant’s conduct causes a mental illness or uncontrollable impulse to commit suicide or
- The parties have a special relationship and the defendant knew or should have known the plaintiff was prone to suicide.
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.
Negligent Act Doesn’t Supersede
An act is not a superseding cause that absolves the original tortfeasor of liability when the risk caused by the intervening act is the same as the risk caused by the tortfeasor’s negligence. An employer negligently told an employee to place a kettle of liquid enamel facing oncoming traffic and provided almost no barrier between the workers and the traffic. A driver negligently drove into the kettle Plaintiff was severely burnt. The type of risk was foreseeable.
Obviousness of the Original Risk
Latzel v. Bartek
If the original risk is obvious and the second actor negligently ignores the obvious danger, the original tortfeasor isn’t liable. Defendant let corn grow so that it affected plaintiffs’ vision at an intersection. Drivers sped through the intersection and caused an accident. Defendant was not liable because he could not have foreseen drivers would disregard an obvious danger when coming to an intersection.
Scope of the Original Risk
Michaels v. CH2M Hill, Inc.
If the intervening act of a third person is negligent, the act is not a superseding cause if the actor should have realized a third person might act that way at the time of his negligent conduct. If the likelihood of a person acting in a certain manner is one of the risks that makes the tortfeasor’s conduct negligent, such an act does not prevent the tortfeasor from being liable for the harm caused
Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc.
Limit to Risk
There are limits to the chain of events between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s harm. Defendant leased a car with a faulty trunk to plaintif, and Plaintiff got hit in a parking lot while trying to close the trunk.
