Proximate Cause Flashcards
Eggshell Plaintiff Rule
Benn v. Thomas
• F: P dies of heart attack six days after suffering bruised chest and fractured ankle in car accident caused by D’s negligence; P had history of coronary disease
• H: eggshell plaintiff instruction should have been given – D take the plaintiff as he finds him, even if that means that the D must compensate P for harm an ordinary person would not have suffered – thus D here liable for P’s death
• As long as there’s foreseeable harm, D liable for the harm even if the harm suffered isn’t foreseeable
Polemis
- F: P ship destroyed by fire negligently started (rope snaps, board falls, causes spark, starts fire)
- H: reasonable foreseeability doesn’t matter – as long as the damage is a direct and natural consequence of D’s negligence, and there is no break in the causal chain (e.g. intervening 3d party), then D is liable
Wagon Mound
• F: D’s negligence causes oil slick on harbor, P is doing welding work on the wharf, spark ignites rag, which falls into water and lights the oil slick aflame; fire spreads and destroys entire wharf
• H: Overrules Polemis, imposes reasonable foreseeability of harm test
• Rule: Consequence must be foreseeable by reasonable person at the time of negligent act
o Look to see if the type of harm is foreseeable, not the extent of the harm
o Purpose of tort law reasonable precautions depend on foreseeable harm
o Can draw type of harm broadly or narrowly – clever lawyering
Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough
- F: tree fell on trolley car, car was only there because it was speeding
- H: no recovery b/c no causation
- IMPORTANT TEST: Does D’s conduct increase chances of a similar accident in the future if D repeated the conduct? If yes, argue proximate cause.
Superseding Causes
Sometimes D has been negligent, but D makes claim that there was an intervening force or third-party conduct that was unforeseeable or produced harm different from that for which the D should be held liable
Doe v. Manheimer
Criminal Superseding Cause Case
• F: P raped on D’s property behind brush and trees that had been overgrown; argues that the overgrowth provided shelter which enabled the rape to occur
• H: No liability for D here – overgrowth on property was not a substantial factor in causing P’s injuries (cause in fact)
o Court looks to previous incidents in the area (high crime), previous assaults had even occurred in plain sight
o Harm that occurred was not of the same nature as the foreseeable risk created (here foreseeable risk would be, e.g., tripping over the brush)
o Assailant was an intervening 3d party who acted intentionally – supersedes the D’s negligence
• Overgrowth is just trivial/incidental factor
Hines v. Garrett - Doe Notes Case
D railroad liable when train carried P past her stop, let her off in between, had to walk through “hobo’s hollow” and was assaulted this is foreseeable harm and why they don’t let people off between stops
Addis v. Steele - Doe Notes Case
- D liable to P guests who were forced to jump from second floor window b/c no fire escape, even though fire was set by arsonist
- D argued arson was superseding cause arson not superseding b/c D was liable to provide safe exit from fire, regardless of how fire is started
Hines v. Morrow - Doe Notes Case
• F: RR sued for negligently maintaining tracks. Left hole in the ground. Man’s peg leg slips in mud in road and he was injured.
• Clever Lawyering/Advocacy
o RR can describe chain of events in detail to make it seem unforeseeable
o P can describe events generally to make it seem foreseeable, i.e. allowing the mud hole to exist negligent, and that it would injure someone is foreseeable
o Don’t want to be too specific or too general
Palsgraf v. LIRR
- F: Guard pulls man into train while he is boarding, man drops package, package contains fireworks, explode, cause scales to fall 50 feet away onto P
- H: D not liable because the harm was unforeseeable – harm might occur to the owner of the package, but not to someone 50 ft down the platform
Palsgraf: Cardozo Opinion
• Cardozo blends proximate cause and duty; says that liability should be proportional to harm; also invokes “zone of danger” type argument
o The railroad is not liable for Palsgraf’s injuries because injuries were not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of any possible negligence
o Even if an act amounts to negligence, it is not actionable if it does not violate a legally protected interest of the plaintiff.
o No duty to P
o Presents details of case so injury seems very unforeseeable
Palsgraf: Andrews Dissent
• D should be liable for any harm resulting from negligence so long as there is no intervening/superseding cause; looks to injury to the public as a whole (doesn’t matter if the specific victim is foreseen)
o D “should make good every injury flowing from his negligence” where the consequence is direct, as long as
o Duty is owed to everyone
