Page 23

Question 1

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?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

What are the two approaches to unforeseeable manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 2

• defendant’s breach was the direct cause

- plaintiff’s injury was extraordinary manner

Question 3

What is the defendant’s breach being a direct cause approach to the foreseeable manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 3

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

Question 4

What is the plaintiff’s injury in an extraordinary manner approach to the manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 4

Even a foreseeable injury isn’t the proximate cause if it came about in a very extraordinary way

Question 5

What is the foreseeable plaintiff requirement for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 5

It must be foreseeable that the plaintiff, or class of people the plaintiff is in would be injured by the defendant’s acts

Question 6

What are the three basic approaches to foreseeability for businesses?

Answer 6

• prior similar incidents test
• totality of circumstances test
• balancing test

Question 7

What is the prior similar incidents test to determine foreseeability for businesses for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 7

Foreseeability comes from evidence of previous crimes on or near the property that puts the landowner on notice a future risk

Question 8

What is the totality of circumstances test for foreseeability for businesses under proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

What is the balancing test for foreseeability for businesses for proximate cause in negligence?

Answer 9

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

Question 10

What is an indirect cause?

Answer 10

Injury comes through a combination of defendant’s conduct and an intervening force set in motion by a third-party

Question 11

What is the question to ask to determine indirect causation for negligence?

Answer 11

Whether, at the time the defendant acted it was reasonably foreseeable that the result that occurred would happen

Question 12

What is an intervening force?

Answer 12

Force that combines with defendant’s conduct and starts after defendant’s conduct has begun

Question 13

Is proximate cause usually found if an intervening force is foreseeably within the scope of risk created by your conduct?

Answer 13

Yes

Question 14

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?

Answer 14

Yes

Question 15

What can the different sources of an intervening force be?

Answer 15

A person other than the plaintiff or defendant, animals, nature (like acts of God), etc.

Question 16

What are forces that are not considered intervening acts?

Answer 16

Pre-existing conditions and forces set in motion by the defendant’s conduct

Question 17

What is a dependent intervening force?

Answer 17

When an act of a third person/animal is a normal response to the situation created by the defendant’s negligent act

Question 18

Is a dependent intervening force considered foreseeable?

Answer 18

Yes, because it is a response, so it doesn’t relieve the defendant of liability as long as it leads to a foreseeable result

Question 19

If you negligently use a lawnmower and hit your neighbor’s dog, and he goes and bites his owner, what is the liability?

Answer 19

That is a normal response and a dependent intervening force, so it does not break the chain of causation

Question 20

What are the two different types of dependent intervening forces?

Answer 20

• normal/foreseeable

- abnormal/unforeseeable

Question 21

What is a normal/foreseeable dependent intervening force?

Answer 21

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

Question 22

What are the normal and foreseeable dependent intervening forces?

Answer 22

• rescue/protection
• medical treatment
• suicide
• escape
• response

Question 23

How is rescue/protection considered a normal foreseeable intervening force?

Answer 23

Defendant is liable for injuries sustained during rescue as long as those rescuing are reasonably foreseeable

Question 24

If a car accident is caused by defendant’s negligence, what is defendant liable for?

Answer 24

Negligence by the ambulance, hospital, any diseases from treatment, etc. because those are foreseeable injuries caused by an accident

Question 25

How is medical treatment a foreseeable intervening force?

Answer 25

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

Question 26

How is suicide considered a normal and foreseeable intervening force?

Answer 26

If plaintiff’s injury is nonfatal but makes him go insane and kill himself that is not intervening.

Question 27

How is the escape considered a normal foreseeable intervening force?

Answer 27

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

Question 28

Other reactions by animate forces can also be foreseeable and normal intervening forces as long as what?

Answer 28

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

Question 29

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?

Answer 29

Yes, so you are liable

Question 30

What is the unforeseeable manner of harm for proximate cause for negligence?

Answer 30

If the way the harm came about was highly extraordinary or freakish, that cuts off liability