Proximate Cause 1 Flashcards
Proximate cause is a legal
Fiction limiting liability for policy reasons
Hypo A Leaves tainted meat in fridge and roommate b steals and sells it to C. C eats it and becomes sick
A conduct factual cause but perhaps not proximate
Ryan holding
No liability, old view of causation
Ryan reasoning
Damage remote cause of D negligence, every event long line of causation
Ryan result
Bright line rule excluding all but most immediate harm (D woodshed)
Berry holding
Even if speed factual cause (pass tree at exact moment it fell) not proximate cause
Berry reasoning 1
Stronger if driving too fast to get out of way, (car driving slowly could have also passed at exact moment fell, driving even faster could have escaped tree)
Berry reasoning 2
Greater care would not reduce frequency of such accidents, wrongful aspect merely coincidental in causing the harm
Berry rule
Legal cause if conduct substantial factor in bringing about the harm and no law relieving of liability, also not liable if tortious aspect of conduct was type that generally doesn’t increase the risk of that harm
Zuchowicz rule applied to proximate cause
For legal cause necessary but not sufficient for negligence to be of a type that increases risk of harm that materializes
3RST approach to Berry problem
Must be kind of tort that increases that kind of harm
Hypo : X negligently manufactures vaccuum so not good suction. Takes to repair shop on the way car accident
Zuchowicz allows fact causation but not sufficient to prove proximate
Hypo B works at Walmart leaves freezer open while restocking. Two year old child crawls in and injured when tongue freezes to metal shelf
B is factual cause but may not be proximate cause
What are two approaches to unexpected harm in legal causation
Directness and Foreseeability
Directness test Benn
Eggshell P + actual harm unforeseeable to D + harm directly caused by D negligence= proximate cause
For Benn first do..
Proximate cause. If yes, liable for whole harm
In re polemia holding
Foreseeability relevant (if no reasonable person could’ve foreseen any risk no duty not negligent) but not to legal causation
In re polemis reasoning
Must be some harm, doesn’t need to be kind that materializes
Nitroglycerins hypo- on table, child bumps it off doesn’t explode but injures child foot
Seems injury to foot directly followed even if not foreseeable harm
Critique of directness
If can’t foresee how will it deter or change behavior, really a wrong if the foreseeable harm not one that happened
Foresight approach
D is proximate cause for type of harm she unreasonably risked ie that she should have foreseen (not limit on damages)
Wagon Mound one holding
D did not know nor could’ve been reasonably expected to know oil would set fire so no liability to dock owner despite carelessness
What was negligent action in wagon mound 1
Either oil spill or assuring work could continue
Wagon Mound 1 reasoning 1
Also if D foresaw risk so should’ve p who continued work
