Proximate Cause 1

Question 1

Proximate cause is a legal

Answer 1

Fiction limiting liability for policy reasons

Question 2

Hypo A Leaves tainted meat in fridge and roommate b steals and sells it to C. C eats it and becomes sick

Answer 2

A conduct factual cause but perhaps not proximate

Question 3

Ryan holding

Answer 3

No liability, old view of causation

Question 4

Ryan reasoning

Answer 4

Damage remote cause of D negligence, every event long line of causation

Question 5

Ryan result

Answer 5

Bright line rule excluding all but most immediate harm (D woodshed)

Question 6

Berry holding

Answer 6

Even if speed factual cause (pass tree at exact moment it fell) not proximate cause

Question 7

Berry reasoning 1

Answer 7

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)

Question 8

Berry reasoning 2

Answer 8

Greater care would not reduce frequency of such accidents, wrongful aspect merely coincidental in causing the harm

Question 9

Berry rule

Answer 9

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

Question 10

Zuchowicz rule applied to proximate cause

Answer 10

For legal cause necessary but not sufficient for negligence to be of a type that increases risk of harm that materializes

Question 11

3RST approach to Berry problem

Answer 11

Must be kind of tort that increases that kind of harm

Question 12

Hypo : X negligently manufactures vaccuum so not good suction. Takes to repair shop on the way car accident

Answer 12

Zuchowicz allows fact causation but not sufficient to prove proximate

Question 13

Hypo B works at Walmart leaves freezer open while restocking. Two year old child crawls in and injured when tongue freezes to metal shelf

Answer 13

B is factual cause but may not be proximate cause

Question 14

What are two approaches to unexpected harm in legal causation

Answer 14

Directness and Foreseeability

Question 15

Directness test Benn

Answer 15

Eggshell P + actual harm unforeseeable to D + harm directly caused by D negligence= proximate cause

Question 16

For Benn first do..

Answer 16

Proximate cause. If yes, liable for whole harm

Question 17

In re polemia holding

Answer 17

Foreseeability relevant (if no reasonable person could’ve foreseen any risk no duty not negligent) but not to legal causation

Question 18

In re polemis reasoning

Answer 18

Must be some harm, doesn’t need to be kind that materializes

Question 19

Nitroglycerins hypo- on table, child bumps it off doesn’t explode but injures child foot

Answer 19

Seems injury to foot directly followed even if not foreseeable harm

Question 20

Critique of directness

Answer 20

If can’t foresee how will it deter or change behavior, really a wrong if the foreseeable harm not one that happened

Question 21

Foresight approach

Answer 21

D is proximate cause for type of harm she unreasonably risked ie that she should have foreseen (not limit on damages)

Question 22

Wagon Mound one holding

Answer 22

D did not know nor could’ve been reasonably expected to know oil would set fire so no liability to dock owner despite carelessness

Question 23

What was negligent action in wagon mound 1

Answer 23

Either oil spill or assuring work could continue

Question 24

Wagon Mound 1 reasoning 1

Answer 24

Also if D foresaw risk so should’ve p who continued work

Question 25

Wagon Mound 1 reasoning 2

Answer 25

Direct doesn’t mean immediate, something can happen inbetween

Question 26

Wagon Mound 1 reasoning 3

Answer 26

Ct says directness bad rule, undermines goal of legal causation (right harm)

Question 27

Wagon Mound 2 result

Answer 27

P innocent here, foreseeability because engineer call so causation

Question 28

Negligence and eggshell skull

Answer 28

If D negligence legal cause D pay full damages

Question 29

Directness test and eggshell skull

Answer 29

If some harm foreseeable and actual harm direct from negligence then D liable for all

Question 30

Foresight and eggshell skull

Answer 30

If type of harm unforeseeable (example because eggshell skull) no legal causation and D not liable at all. If type foreseeable just not severity then legal causation is met

Question 31

Hypo injury to head and then heart issue because p eggshell

Answer 31

Foreseeable type of injury head trauma or bodily injury

Question 32

Hypo Wintertime V teacher negligently leaves window open. V catches cold and severe due to unique sensitivity

Answer 32

Type of harm foreseeable so liable for all harm

Question 33

Hypo V teacher negligently leaves window open in wintertime . rabid raccoon comes in and bites V. Severe infection because eggshell skull

Answer 33

Unless reason to think leaving window open negligent because animals real problem in that area, not specific kind of harm foreseeable ex ante

Question 34

Hypo leave fire burning gets into another person tent and hurts lungs. Also damage to vocal cords uniquely costly because professional singer.

Answer 34

Can foresee damage to property and people so liable for tent and med bills. Also liable for lost wages (whole harm)

Question 35

Browser is about ..

Answer 35

Third person causing harm

Question 36

Brower holding

Answer 36

Two causes simultaneous and concurrent, thieves didn’t intervene between D negligence and P loss

Question 37

Brower reasoning

Answer 37

P driver couldn’t protect property something otherwise would’ve done, company hiring guards meant foreseeable outcome

Question 38

Brower dissent

Answer 38

Independent criminal actor breaks continuity required for proximate cause