Proximate causation Flashcards
Proximate causation
Some of the ways courts have attempted to draw a line between what a D should or should not be found liable
Proximate cause is a question for a jury unless the judge concludes that a jury can not prove proximate cause
Many real-life tort cases don’t present many proximate court issues and let the jury decide.
The court will instruct the jury on proximate cause depending on jurisdiction.
Jurors are likely to make proximate cause decisions based on the jurors own sense of what is fair and public policy. This is the purpose of proximate cause! Proximate cause creates a reasonable line between what the average person would decide is liable.
Ryan rule: a defendant is not liable for remote and unforeseeable consequences
Exception: if it is foreseeable that the defendant’s actions will cause injury, the defendant will be liable for all of the resulting damages regardless of the foreseeability of the damages. (Eggshell doctrine).
Prelemis Case: Rule for proximate cause “direct causation rule.” If the injury was caused by the defendant’s action with no intervening
Wagon test: reasonable foreseeability of the kind of harm that the defendant’s action resulted in.
Wagon Cart 2: The cost of precautions, the likelihood of injury, and the severity of injury to determine the foreseeability of the kind of that that the plaintiff suffered.
The flaming rat test: Protects people from the kind of harm and NOT the manner of method that harm was inflicted.
Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damage.
Causation in fact and proximate causation.
Breach - general all-risks considered as a result of the defendant’s conduct. Proximate asks a more particular question. “What actually happened to this plaintiff?” Was the negligent act connected to the damages suffered by the plaintiff?
“Whether the d at the time he acted could foresee the risk that injured the plaintiff?”
Question for proximate cause. What were the bad things that made us think the defendant was in breach?
Flaming rat: allowing its employee to clean a room with gasoline. The risk was burning up. And they burned up. The risky behavior has to be related to the risky result.
Yun v. Ford Motor Co.
Facts: a person is hit by a car because things fell out of the spare chamber. The daughter sued everyone on the grounds of approximate cause.
The defendant will argue this is a superseding cause the plaintiff will argue this was not a superseding cause
Palsgraf v. Long Island RR Co.
Causation analysis:
1) but for causation first
2) Were the damages suffered by the plaintiff reasonably foreseeable based on the negligent act? Is this the sort of damage related to the assumed risks of the act?
The boundaries of who are foreseeable plaintiffs are bound to what the breach is
Some courts hold that the defendant holds no duty to unforeseeable plaintiffs.
- decided by a judge as a matter of law
Proximate cause
- usually a jury issue
Was the harm of the plaintiff reasonably foreseeable and it should go to the jury?
Judge Andrews in Palsgraf
