Proximate Cause

Question 1

Scope

Answer 1

The harm resulted from the risks that made the defendant’s conduct negligent in the first place

Defendant is nit liable if the actual harm was not within the scope of the risk the defendant created

Question 2

Liability for negligence

Answer 2

Liability for negligence is liability for the unreasonable risks the defendant created, not for their reasonable risks or for those that were unforeseeable.

Question 3

Risk rule

Answer 3

An actor’s liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actors conduct tortious.

Question 4

Principle

Answer 4

Liability must be rejected unless a reasonable person would have reasonably foreseen and avoided harm of the same general kind actually suffered by the plaintiff.

The defendant who negligently creates a risk to the plaintiff is subject to liability when that risk or a similar one results in harm, but not when some entirely different risk eventuates in an entirely different harm

If a reasonable person would have recognized (“foreseen”) a risk of harm and would have sought to avoid it, then the defendant who fails to do so is negligent.

Foreseeable class of harm and class of plaintff

Question 5

Foreseeability

Answer 5

Foreseeability is key

Scope of liability, concerned with whether the defendants conduct foreseeably risked the type of harm that actually happened to the plaintiff.

Question 6

Determination

Answer 6

To determine if plaintiff’s harm was “foreseeable,” identify the unreasonable risk that made the act negligent. Did plaintiff suffer the type of harm associated with defendant’s act?

Question 7

Not liable

Answer 7

Defendant is not liable for any harm he causes that is not within the risks he negligently created.

A harm or risk is not within the scope of the risks negligently created by the defendant in any of the following circumstances:

If a reasonable person in similar circumstances would not have foreseen harm or risk of the same general type.

If a reasonable person should have foreseen the general type of harm but would not have taken greater precautions to avoid it than the defendant took (a case of no negligence or breach of duty).

If reasonable person would not have foreseen harm of the same general type to a general class of persons that includes the plaintiff.

Question 8

Liable

Answer 8

Defendant is subject to liability for all harm he causes within the scope of the risks he negligently created.

(a) for the types of injuries foreseeably risked by his negligence and (b) to classes of persons foreseeably risked by his negligence.

Not liable unless a reasonable person in defendants circumstances should have foreseen that defendants conduct risked injuries of the same general type that occurred to a general class of persons within which the plaintiff is found

Question 9

Question

Answer 9

​​should the defendant have foreseen a harm of the same general kind that occurred to a class of persons that included the plaintiff

Could the defendant, at the time that he acted, foresee the risk that injured the plaintiff?

Question 10

Specific type of harm

Answer 10

A harm or risk is not of the same general kind that the defendant should have foreseen if he risked harm that would occur only through a specific force or class of forces and the harm that resulted was caused by a radically different force or class of forces.

Question 11

Consider all range of harms (Thompson)

Answer 11

courts must initially consider all of the range of harms risked by the defendant’s conduct that the jury could find as the basis for determining [the defendant’s] conduct tortious

Then, the court can compare the plaintiff’s harm with the range of harms risked by the defendant to determine whether a reasonable jury might find the former among the latter

Question 12

Cardozo Scope

Answer 12

When we consider the “risks” we look not just to the TYPE OF HARM associated with the negligence We also consider who is a FORESEEABLE PLAINTIFF.

Question 13

Andrews Scope

Answer 13

Duty runs to the world at large and negligence toward one is negligence to all
A person who is negligent to any class of persons is negligent to everyone who is in fact injured

Liability is limited to proximate cause, not by defining the scope of duty or negligence
Proximate cause was not a matter of foreseeability alone, matter of host of factors.

Proximate cause is determined by several factors, not by the scope of the defendants negligence

Translating Andrews:
Proximate cause because of the convenience of public policy, rough sense of justice, the law will not trace a series of events past a certain point.

Question 14

Duty and Proximate cause Coin

Answer 14

Duty and proximate cause are two sides of the same coin: The scope of one’s duty is limited by the scope of foreseeable consequences.

Courts have often adopted Andrew’s proximate cause locution but cardozo foreseeability. Forseeability is some form as a limitation on liability.

Courts generally follow Cardozo, but they address it as an issue of proximate cause, rather than duty.

Question 15

Duty and Proximate cause Coin
(Restatement)

Answer 15

An actor’s liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious.” Rest 3d Torts § 29.

Question 16

Jury role

Answer 16

Scope of risk is a matter that must necessarily be determined on the facts of each case. Question of scope is usually one for the jury so long as reasonable people could differ

Question 17

Rescue doctrine

Answer 17

Danger invites rescue

Rescue is foreseeable or is foreseeable as a matter of law. Rescuer can recover from the defendant whose negligence prompts the rescue if the rescuer had a reasonable belief that the victim was in peril

Does not always involve physical intervention

Question 18

Similarity to negligence per se

Answer 18

Thompson and Palsgraf together pursue rules similar to those used in negligence per se cases, limiting liability to certain classes of harm and certain classes of persons in these cases, to classes of harm or person foreseeability of which made the defendant negligent.

Question 19

General nature of harm

Answer 19

As long as harm of the general nature is that which occurred is foreseeable there is a basis for liability even through the manner in which the accident happens is unusual, bizarre or unforeseeable.
The precise manner of harm need not be foreseeable if the general type of harm was foreseeable

Question 20

General nature of harm dissent

Answer 20

The manner in which a plaintiff is injured is relevant to the foreseeability analysis, as comment (o) [Restatement Third Section 29] provides: “Some aspects of the manner in which the harm occurs are relevant to a determination of the scope of an actor’s liability․ [T]he manner of harm can be of critical importance in determining whether the harm is within the scope of liability․”

Question 21

Thin skull rule

Answer 21

If defendant was negligent or guilty of intentional harm, then the fact that the harm was much worse than anyone would have expected does not limit his liability

“Takes the plaintiff as he find him”

Question 22

Thin skull rule
(Liable for the aggravation)

Answer 22

Does not make tortfeasor liable for the preexisting condition itself, rather liability for any aggravation of the original condition that is caused by the defendants negligence, even where that aggravation was not foreseeable.

Question 23

Thin skull rule
(No liability without fault)

Answer 23

Defendants act must be one that would cause some harm to an ordinary person or have fault because defendant knew or should have known of plaintiffs susceptible condition.

merely holds that the defendant does not escape liability for the unforeseeable personal reactions of the plaintiff, once negligence or intentional fault is established.

Question 24

Superseding cause

Answer 24

Breaks the casual chain, intervening act of some second tortfeasor should relieve the first tortfeasor of liability only when the resulting harm is outside the scope of the risk negligently created by the first tortfeasor.

Intervening cause that lies withing the scope of the foreseeable risk, or has a reasonable connection to it, is not a superseding

Question 25

Superseding cause
(Modern view criminal acts)

Answer 25

Criminal acts may be foreseeable, and so within the scope of the created risk

Question 26

Suicide

Answer 26

where a plaintiff intentionally attempts to commit or commits suicide, the plaintiff’s act is a superseding cause of plaintiff’s harm, freeing the defendant from any liability for negligence.

Question 27

Suicide
(Exceptions)

Answer 27

(1) where the defendant’s tortious conduct induces a mental illness or an “uncontrollable impulse” in the plaintiff (or decedent) from which the suicide attempt (or suicide) results; and

(2) where there is a special relationship between the two parties, that presumes or includes knowledge by the defendant of plaintiff’s risk of committing suicide.

Question 28

Negligent intervening acts

Answer 28

When the acts of a third person intervene between the defendants conduct and the plaintiffs injury, liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendants negligent

Question 29

Negligent intervening acts
(Superseding)

Answer 29

If extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent of or fat removed from the defendants conduct, it may well be a superseding act which breaks the causal nexus.

Question 30

Negligent intervening acts
(foreseeable)

Answer 30

An intervening act, even one that is negligent or reckless, does not break the chain of causation if the general character of the resulting injuries is foreseeable

Question 31

Negligent intervening acts
(General Harm)

Answer 31

Specific manner of harm does not matter as long as the general harm came about

Ex: Felix

Did not matter that driver had a seizure or was intentional before crashing into construction site and did not matter that the enamel burned plaintiff, the general harm of a car crashing and injuring the plaintiff was satisfied

Question 32

Negligent intervening acts
(Subsequent medical negligence)

Answer 32

Virtually all courts agree that when a defendant causes harm to a person, that defendant will also be liable for any “enhanced harm” caused by the later negligent provision of aid, including negligent medical treatment.

[A]n original tortfeasor is liable for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his initial injuries to a plaintiff, and those consequences can include, but are not limited to, additional injuries caused by a physician’s conduct in diagnosing or treating the initial injuries.

Question 33

Negligent intervening acts
(Length of time )

Answer 33

Could affect if a negligent act is superseding

Forty minutes after the original accident…pointing to the length of time between the two crashes and the “patently obvious hazard” that faced Slezak,

Question 34

Intervening person or act

Answer 34

An intervening cause that lies within the scope of the foreseeable risk, or has a reasonable connection to it, is not a superseding cause.

proximate cause requires only that the general kind of harm be foreseeable for an actors conduct to be considered the proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries.

Question 35

Summarized info:

Answer 35

To determine if plaintiff’s harm was “foreseeable,” identify the unreasonable risk that made the act negligent. Did plaintiff suffer the type of harm associated with defendant’s act? An “intervening” act does not necessarily cut off causation; just focus on whether the harm was foreseeable.

Always foreseeable:
Egg-shell skulls
Harm negligently caused by rescuers and medical personnel
Harm to rescuers
(Usually) harm while recovering from injury
Harm caused by torts and crimes of others may be foreseeable.