Proximate Causation Flashcards
Aside from D’s conduct being the actual cause, D’s conduct must also be the….
PROXIMATE CAUSE of the injury!
Even though the conduct actually caused the plaintiff’s injury, it might not be deemed to be the proximate cause.
Thus, the doctrine of proximate causation is a limitation of liability and deals with liability or nonliability for unforeseeable or unusual consequences of one’s acts.
General rule - scope of foreseeable risk
A defendant generally is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by their negligent acts. This is a foreseeability test.
common foreseeable intervening forces:
The defendant is liable when their negligence caused a foreseeable reaction from an INTERVENING FORCE or created a FORESEEABLE RISK THAT an intervening force would harm the plaintiff.
what are the types of intervening forces that are normal response/reactions created by D’s negligence that are almost always foreseeable?
The following intervening forces that are normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant’s negligent act are almost always foreseeable:
1) medical malpractice
2) negligence of rescuers
3) protection or reaction forces to the D’s conduct, including efforts to protect person or property
4) disease or accident substantially caused by the original injury
what about forces that are NOT just a natural responses/reaction?
Intervening forces that are not just a natural response or reaction to the situation created by the defendant’s conduct MAY be foreseeable if the defendant’s negligence increased the risk of harm from these forces.
These intervening forces include
(1) negligent acts of third persons,
(2) crimes and intentional torts of third persons, and
(3) acts of God.
For example, if a valet leaves the keys in a car, and a thief steals the car, the valet may be liable because the thief’s conduct may be considered a foreseeable intervening force.
what are “superseding forces”?
Intervening forces that produce unforeseeable results (results not within the increased risk created by the defendant’s negligence) are generally deemed unforeseeable and superseding.
what effect do ‘superseding forces’ have on causation?
Superseding forces break the causal connection between the defendant’s initial negligent act and the plaintiff’s ultimate injury, thus relieving the defendant of liability.
For example, if the defendant negligently blocks a road, forcing the plaintiff to take an alternate road, and then another driver negligently collides with the plaintiff on this road, the other driver’s conduct is an unforeseeable intervening force because the defendant’s negligence did not increase the risk of its occurrence. Thus, the other driver is a superseding force that cuts off he defendant’s liability for the original negligent act of blocking the road.
