Page 23 Flashcards
If you’re working on a construction site with no barricades, and defendant has a seizure and drives through the worksite and you end up on fire, is he the proximate cause of your injuries?
This is the type of harm you would foresee, but is so freakish, bizarre, and unforeseeable that a seizure is the way it would happen, it probably cuts off liability
What are the two approaches to unforeseeable manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?
- defendant’s breach was the direct cause
- plaintiff’s injury was extraordinary manner
What is the defendant’s breach being a direct cause approach to the foreseeable manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?
The defendant’s breach was a proximate cause if it was a type of injury that could’ve been reasonably foreseen, regardless of how unusual the events were that brought it about
What is the plaintiff’s injury in an extraordinary manner approach to the manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?
Even a foreseeable injury isn’t the proximate cause if it came about in a very extraordinary way
What is the foreseeable plaintiff requirement for proximate cause for negligence?
It must be foreseeable that the plaintiff, or class of people the plaintiff is in would be injured by the defendant’s acts
What are the three basic approaches to foreseeability for businesses?
- prior similar incidents test
- totality of circumstances test
- balancing test
What is the prior similar incidents test to determine foreseeability for businesses for proximate cause for negligence?
Foreseeability comes from evidence of previous crimes on or near the property that puts the landowner on notice a future risk
What is the totality of circumstances test for foreseeability for businesses under proximate cause for negligence?
This is the most common approach and looks at many factors like:
- the nature of previous incidents
- condition, location, and level of crime in the area
If the landowner knew/should have known that crime was foreseeable, he is liable
What is the balancing test for foreseeability for businesses for proximate cause in negligence?
This balances the foreseeability of harm against the burden of imposing a duty to protect people from third parties. The higher the foreseeability, the more substantial burden
What is an indirect cause?
Injury comes through a combination of defendant’s conduct and an intervening force set in motion by a third-party
What is the question to ask to determine indirect causation for negligence?
Whether, at the time the defendant acted it was reasonably foreseeable that the result that occurred would happen
What is an intervening force?
Force that combines with defendant’s conduct and starts after defendant’s conduct has begun
Is proximate cause usually found if an intervening force is foreseeably within the scope of risk created by your conduct?
Yes
If a separate act or omission breaks the direct connection between the defendant’s act in an injury, can that relieve the defendant of liability?
Yes
What can the different sources of an intervening force be?
A person other than the plaintiff or defendant, animals, nature (like acts of God), etc.
What are forces that are not considered intervening acts?
Pre-existing conditions and forces set in motion by the defendant’s conduct
What is a dependent intervening force?
When an act of a third person/animal is a normal response to the situation created by the defendant’s negligent act
Is a dependent intervening force considered foreseeable?
Yes, because it is a response, so it doesn’t relieve the defendant of liability as long as it leads to a foreseeable result
If you negligently use a lawnmower and hit your neighbor’s dog, and he goes and bites his owner, what is the liability?
That is a normal response and a dependent intervening force, so it does not break the chain of causation
What are the two different types of dependent intervening forces?
- normal/foreseeable
- abnormal/unforeseeable
What is a normal/foreseeable dependent intervening force?
When an intervening force is a response to the defendant’s act, the defendant is liable if it is normal or foreseeable, but not if it is abnormal
What are the normal and foreseeable dependent intervening forces?
- rescue/protection
- medical treatment
- suicide
- escape
- response
How is rescue/protection considered a normal foreseeable intervening force?
Defendant is liable for injuries sustained during rescue as long as those rescuing are reasonably foreseeable
If a car accident is caused by defendant’s negligence, what is defendant liable for?
Negligence by the ambulance, hospital, any diseases from treatment, etc. because those are foreseeable injuries caused by an accident
How is medical treatment a foreseeable intervening force?
If Plaintiff gets medical treatment because of his injury, and the treatment is negligent, that is foreseeable. If the treatment is reckless that is superseding
How is suicide considered a normal and foreseeable intervening force?
If plaintiff’s injury is nonfatal but makes him go insane and kill himself that is not intervening.
How is the escape considered a normal foreseeable intervening force?
It is foreseeable that someone that is threatened with harm will try to escape and might be injured or may injure others while trying to escape
Other reactions by animate forces can also be foreseeable and normal intervening forces as long as what?
They are normal responses to the situation that is created by defendant’s negligence. If they are highly unusual, they are not dependent intervening forces
If you set off fireworks by a horse that the plaintiff is riding, and the horse gets frightened and the plaintiff was injured, is that a foreseeable and normal response to your action?
Yes, so you are liable
What is the unforeseeable manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?
If the way the harm came about was highly extraordinary or freakish, that cuts off liability
