Proximate Cause Flashcards
a. Francis Bacon on proximate cause
i. There can be a number of causes, but only the actor or the person closest to the actual cause should be responsible.
ii. The example is appealing, but ineffective.
b. Thomas Street
i. We all would like ProxCause to be a simple inquiry, and bacon gave us one, but as soon as you look at the real cases, they never work.
ii. The theories have not been as influential or helpful as they should have.
Ryan v. New York Central RR
i. Facts
1) P house was 130 feet away when it was destroyed by fire caused by the D’s NEG management or insufficient condition of a train. Fire first consumed his woodshed and then moved on to other houses, including the P’s.
ii. Issue:
1) Is the D’s NEG the cause of the P’s loss? If but for the fire would the house have burned down.
iii. Holding
1) NO, the D is liable for destruction of the property adjacent to his house but not the P’s house
a) Not “ordinary and natural” result to fire to woodshed
b) Degree of heat, state of atmosphere and material in adjoining structures, was it really foreseeable?
2) To hold otherwise would subject the D to liability against which no prudence could guard and no private fortune would be adequate
a) Destruction of civilized society
b) Punishment beyond offense committed
iv. Notes
1) The D’s NEG is without doubt the butforcause of the P’s house burning down.
2) From the D’s perspective,
a) Is it the direct consequence?
i) Direct is the immediate cause of the injury
ii) The more we separate the loss from the cause, the easier it is to say it is not the direct cause
b) Is the P’s loss foreseeable?
i) from the D’s perspective Is foreseeable different from proximate cause?
3) Too show causation one must show both cause in fact ( the but for test) and proximate cause (that the act is within close proximity to the injury)
a) Cause in fact
i) But for the event occurring, the injury would not have happened
b) Cause in Law
i) Direct causation (minority)
1. It does not matter how foreseeable the result as long as what the negligent party’s physical action can be tied to what actually happened.
a. There are no Intervening causes between the act and the injury
ii) Foreseeability (Majority)
1. if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted.
4) Exam question T/F it would be better for the P in the squib case if the two people in the intervening market acted in an instinctual manner. 1. 5) Hypo a) Townhome, i) You set fire to a row of townhomes, by just setting the first home one fire. Is the fire a proximate or immediate cause of 2nd or 3rd homes demise? A. You can't expose the D to too extensive of a liability b) Vehicles i) You slam on your breaks on the freeway and cause a 30 car pile up. Are you c) Good case to show proximate cause is completely different from causation? 6) You should be responsible to buy your own damn insurance. I can't buy insurance for your house, so you should be responsible to some degree.
d. City of Lincoln
i. Facts
1) D vessel smashed into the P’s vessel rendering it non-navigable
ii. Holding
1) Only inquiry is whether damage complained of is “natural and reasonable” result of the D’s act
2) D is liable because consequence flowed from his act
3) Reasonable human conduct is not considered intervening act that bars P from recovery.
iii. Notes
1) Driver is driving too fast and starts to loose control, the P leaps out and breaks his finger, but the D recovers control of the car.
a) Does the P recover?
i) What was the cause of his injury?
A. Was it cause in fact?
i. Mauney v. Gulf Refining
i. Facts
1) P tripped over a stool in husbands café after reacting to a warning that the D’s tanker is going to explode
ii. Holding
1) No recovery because the D could not have foreseen the P’s injury due to a stool in front of her feet when the D could not have seen the same stool through the walls.
iii. Notes
1) Foresight has nothing to do with actual vision,
a) Foresight is whether you as the D will forsee a women will jump up in a building to run out to her car will trip and hurt herself because of your actions…
i) Nope not foreseeable.
j. Berry v. Sugar Notch Borough
i. Facts
1) P motorman for trolley company operating a car in the D’s neighborhood. A large chestnut tree fell on top of the trolley car during a wind storm. The P was injured but the P was operating the trolley car at excessive speeds in violation of an ordinance
ii. Issues
1) Did the P’s violation of ordinance by driving too fast cause his own injury?
iii. Holding
1) No, the fact that speed brought the P to place of accident at the moment the tree fell was “mere chance” which no foresight could have predicted. COINCIDENCE
iv. Notes
1) Do we decide the case on a basis of cause in law or cause in fact?
a) Cause in fact!
b) P’s NEG did not CAUSE the P’s injury.
2) Was the P’s NEG of speeding within the harm of being hit by a tree?
a) NOOOOO harm within the risk.
b) Proximate cause would be applicable, if the tree had fallen on the tracks and he couldn’t stop in time.
Central of Georgia RR v. Price
i. Facts
1) D NEG missed the P’s stop and put her in a hotel that same night a kerosene lamp exploded in the hotel room causing her serious injuries. The P sues the RR.
ii. Issue
1) Is D’s failure to drop the P off at an appropriate stop proximate cause of her burn?
iii. Holding
1) No, once again just a weird timing coincidence. The Hotel is more NEG for maintaining a defective lamp. The P’s injuries are not a natural cause or proximate cause of the D’s NEG; rather unusual and could not been foreseen or provided against by he highest practical care
iv. Notes
1) The RR was NEG in not getting her off the train in time, but that NEG in no way increased the danger that she would be injured by the exploding lantern.
a) Is it an issue with foreseeability or direct consequences.
i) d
l. Hines v. Garrett
i. Facts
1) 19 Year old female P was dropped off about a mile from her actual stop when the train overshot it. They dropped her off in an area known to be infested with brigands and hobos. The P was raped twice on her way back to the stop.
ii. Issues
1) Is the D’d NEG in dropping off the P in shady part of town a proximate cause of the P’s injuries even though it was 2 third parties that acted tortuously?
iii. Holding
1) D’s NEG exposed the P to the very act that caused her injuries, therefore they are NEG
iv. Notes
1) The railroad should have foreseen the issues with her walking through a seedy part of town. And their NEG in letting her off at a bad stop.
n. Pittsburg Reduction Co. v. Horton
i. Facts
1) D discarded a dynamite camp on unenclosed premises. Little Charlie Copple found the cap and played with it. He later traded the cap to Jack Horton for some writing paper. Little jack thought the cap was an empty .22 shell and decided to clean it out with a match. It exploded in his hand injuring jack.
ii. Issues
1) Is the D’s NEG in storing its blasting caps the proximate cause of the P’s injuries?
iii. Holding
1) No, Copple’s mother’s action broke the causal chain. Once she saw it and continued to let him play with it, the NEG was then hers instead of the Companies.
iv. Notes
1) Active force v. Intervening actor, What is the difference?
a) An active force is one that is at the present
b) An intervening actor is one that is inserted into the tortious action, breaking the chain of causation. I.E. throwing the dynamite in the market (squib) Scott v. Shepherd
2) Beal
a) Active force comes to rest in a dangerous position (middle of the road) , this creates a new or increasing risk of loss, thereby making the active force a proximate cause if a tortious act occurs due to the dangerous position they have been put in.
b) However if the active force comes to rest in a safe position, and an intervening actor moves the force to create a new harm, the result it is too remote to constitute proximate cause.
o. Brower v. New York Central RR
i. Facts
1) The P is in horse-drawn wagon carrying cider, barrels, and other goods. While crossing the track it is struck by the D’s train. The P’s goods scattered near the collision and stolen by thieves
ii. Issues
1) Is the D’s NEG in causing the collision also the proximate cause of thieves stealing the P’s goods?
iii. Holding
1) Yes, the D’s NEG in causing the collision resulted immediately in rendering the P unable to protect his property, the disappearance of goods is natural and a probable result of them being scattered in a large city.
a) The act of an intervening third party will not excuse the original party’s NEG if the D’s NEG could have been foreseen
2) Dissenting, the Proximate cause imports “unbroken continuity” between cause and effect
a) A murder on a train is a bad example because it is not very foreseeable that a bandit would get on a derailed train to steel something and then murder a train passenger.
b) Not analogous to the instant case.
c) because theft is much more foreseeable than murder then left.
iv. Notes
1) The active force has come to rest when the collision is over. Are the intervening actors perpetuated by the collision coming to rest in a safe position or a dangerous one?
a) A dangerous one (city)
2) Was the crime foreseeable? Like Hines v. Garrett, where the girl was dropped off in a bad neighborhood, theft is foreseeable in a large city.
3) Hierarchy of intervening actors
a) Criminals actors
b) Negligence actors
c) Benevolent actors
4) Two schools of thought concerning Causation
a) Direct consequences
b) Foreseeability
p. Atherton v. Devine
i. Facts
1) P injured in a car accident, on the way to the hospital they were in another car accident and injured again while the ambulance iis n route to the hospital. Is the D who caused the first accident the proximate cause of his injuries?
ii. Holding
1) First collision was a substantial factor in causing the subsequent injury.
iii. Notes
1) Why would you not just charge the other tortfeasors?
a) Difficulty in determining the other causes
b) Was the ambulance driver NEG in their driving?
i) Ambulance Driver was driving excessive speeds (they are bleeding out)
A. No there is no NEG
ii) Ambulance driver was drunk?
A. Yes there is NEG
c) Common law holds that any tortfeasor that is considered an intervening actor, you as a P can sue any of them in a chain as long as its just for the injuries resulting after their intervention
SS 2-448
i. Intentionally Tortious or Criminal Acts Done Under Opportunity Afforded by Actor’s Negligence
1) Third party’s intentional tort or crime is SUPERSEDING cause of harm to another UNLESS negligent actor REALIZED or SHOULD HAVE REALIZED likelihood that a third party might have availed self of opportunity to commit tort or crime.
ii. Test Question
1) The P would prefer a doctrine of comparative NEG over Superseding cause
a) True, under a superseding cause doctrine the P does not recover.
b) A superseding cause is an unforeseeable cause that breaks the chain of causation.
c) A foreseeable intervening cause that does not break the chain of causation.
t. Bigbee v. Pacific telephone and telegraph Co.
i. Facts
1) P trapped in the D’s phone booth when it is struck by a drunk driver. They could not get out in time and were injured
ii. Holding
1) D is NEG in management and placement of the booth and not relieved of its proximate cause argument
2) D NEG precisely because it is likely a person trapped in the phone booth could be struck by a drunk driver on a busy street
iii. Notes
1) Does the intervening actor break the chain of causation?
a) Was it foreseeable?
b) Why was the D NEG in maintaining the phone booth? Because the mechanism wouldn’t work that opened the door. Does the harm of the door not working within the risk of the driver hitting it?
c) Was the Booth Negligently placed? Very possibly
d) How about the door opening? Custom, is what dictated how the door opened. You cannot hold a companies safety standards against them.
u. Britton v. Wooten
i. Facts
1) D’s Lessee NEG stacked excessive amounts of flammable trash inside a grocery store; arsonist set fire the stack.
ii. Holding
1) Followed the restatement and rejected the claim that criminal acts of third parties relieve original NEG party from liability
iii. Notes
1) Does the intervening actor break the chain of causation?
a) Was it foreseeable?
2) Safety statute, the NEG of the D was due to the safety issues involved with stacking the trash. Was the harm within the risk? I actually don’t think so, why was the statute created? More likely than not to prevent fire, but how would stacking it cause fire?
v. Bell v. Board of Education
i. Facts
1) School left P behind at a 6th grade drug awareness fair near the school. While walking back the P was accosted by three boys who raped her and sodomized her.
ii. Holding
1) After jruy found for P, the appeals court was unable to say that intervening act of rape was unforeseeable as a matter of law.
iii. Notes.
1) Does the intervening act of the boys attacking her break the chain of causation from the teacher?
a) Was it foreseeable?
i) The students were at a drug awareness fair.
