Proximate Cause 2

Question 1

RST modern approach to intervening actors

Answer 1

Third person intentional tort/crime is superseding cause though D negligence created situation that gave opportunity to thrd person UNLESS D at time of negligent conduct should’ve realized that such a situation might be created and third person might take opportunity

Question 2

McLaughlin facts

Answer 2

D agent demonstrated proper use to fireman at time of sale and fireman knew insulation was necessary but didn’t tell nurse or stop her

Question 3

McLaughlin holding

Answer 3

Fireman did know how to use but didn’t correct nurse so gross negligence supersedes any D negligence (manufacturer)

Question 4

Nallan negligent act

Answer 4

Employed lobby attendant so assumed minimal duty of protection against intruders but attendant absent at time of shooting

Question 5

Nallan holding

Answer 5

Mere presence of attendant would’ve deterred so proximate cause

Question 6

Nallan. Reasoning

Answer 6

Fact that criminal injured doesn’t preclude proximate cause if intervening agent foreseeable hazard

Question 7

RST Intervening Actors and Foresight

Answer 7

Whether intervening actors harm was precise sort for which D negligent act increases the risk of+ consequence of D negligence foreseeable to D

Question 8

Palsgraf holding

Answer 8

D not liable to P because owed no duty to P

Question 9

Palsgraf reasoning 1

Answer 9

No negligence in the air, term of relation

Question 10

Palsgraf reasoning 2

Answer 10

Even if D conduct wrong to holder of the package, D no duty of care to P because injury not foreseeable (many feet away)

Question 11

Palsgraf reasoning 3

Answer 11

No duty so no liability, don’t have to argue causation

Question 12

Palsgraf reasoning 4

Answer 12

D general duty of reasonable care to others but only owed to those within the range of apprehension (foreseeable parties)

Question 13

Cardozo says negligence is a wrong to

Answer 13

Particular person, not the world generally

Question 14

Cardozo could’ve ruled that ..

Answer 14

P unforeseeable vicitm so no cause (but needed de novo Q of law)

Question 15

Breach

Answer 15

D failed to act with reasonable care under the circumstances

Question 16

Causation

Answer 16

D negligence factual and legal cause of P harms

Question 17

Damages

Answer 17

P experienced legally recognizable harm

Question 18

Palsgraf dissent 1

Answer 18

D duty of care to world at large

Question 19

Palsgraf dissent 2

Answer 19

D liable for harms from duties breached even to unforeseeable P so long as factual and legal cause of harms (reasonable factfinder may find causation here)

Question 20

Duty type of inquiry

Answer 20

Legal, decided by judge

Question 21

Duty had a — holding

Answer 21

Broad, who owes duties to whom

Question 22

Duty policy considerations

Answer 22

Overly expansive raises Q of autonomy and over deterrence, whether some should have higher duties

Question 23

Causation inquiry

Answer 23

Factual, jury

Question 24

Causation has a — holding

Answer 24

Narrow, closely tied to facts of particular P and D

Question 25

Causation policy concerns

Answer 25

Unfair to hold remote causes liable if couldn’t foresee

Question 26

Modern doctrine of unforeseeable Ps

Answer 26

No liability, conduct must create recognizable risk of harm to other individually or to a class of persons of which the other is a member

Question 27

Wagner takeaway

Answer 27

Danger invites rescue

Question 28

Wagner holding

Answer 28

If D creates risk to A and harms A, liable to A and rescuers that aid A so long as reduce efforts not abnormal or completely hopeless

Question 29

Wagner reasoning

Answer 29

Continuity not broken, P reaction natural and probable consequence

Question 30

Wagner note about CN

Answer 30

Rescuer may be negligence but most Jdx have comparative negligence rule

Question 31

RST Necessary Rescue due to negligence 1

Answer 31

P does not assume the risk unless he voluntarily accepts the risk

Question 32

RST Necessary Rescue due to negligence 2

Answer 32

P acceptance of risk not voluntary if D tortious conduct left him no reasonable alternative course of conduct in order to a) avert harm to himself or another b) exercise or protect right or privilege of which D had no right to deprive him

Question 33

Railroad endangers B, blind man about to cross. C bystander reasonable effort to save rushes onto tracks and pushes B out of danger C struck by train

Answer 33

C not assume risk, not negligent

Question 34

Same railroad rescue hypo but C acts negligently.

Answer 34

No recovery due to contributory negligence not AR

Question 35

kism

Question 36

Kinsman takeaway

Answer 36

Damages not limited by foreseeability

Question 37

Role of Foreseeability in Negligence 1

Answer 37

Establish breached duty some harm must be foreseeable

Question 38

Role of Foreseeability in Negligence 2

Answer 38

For proximate cause= type of harm caused foreseeable and may include intervening actor if still foreseeable (Brower, Nallan)

Question 39

Role of Foreseeability in Negligence 3

Answer 39

Foreseeable to whom harm was caused (Palsgraf)

Question 40

Role of Foreseeability in Negligence 4

Answer 40

Foreseeability doesn’t limit damages

Question 41

Proximate cause flow

Answer 41

Conduct Increase this type of harm (Benn) then directly flows from negligence OR type of harm foreseeable. Intervening actors not superseding causes if foreseeable consequence of negligent act. No proximate causation to unforeseeable parties (and maybe no duty Palsgraf)