Proximate Cause Flashcards
Cause In Fact
- “But for” test - But for (negligent action) (harm) would not have occurred.
a. HYPO: But for Carlton-Saddler negligently using gasoline to clean her drier, a fire would not have occurred in Kent’s house, burning his deeds.
b. Relationship between the negligence and the harm.
Proximate Cause Rule
A policy limitation on how far the law will allow cause-in-fact to be traced to create liability.
Proximate Cause Question
- Asks whether liability should be cut off even if we can trace it back to the act or omission.
a. Not a “fill-in-the blanks”
b. How closely the negligence is related to the harm done.
Policy for Proximate Cause 1
- logic
- common sense
- Precedent
- Justice
- Administrative possibility
- May take into account temporal or physical proximity (forseeability)
Policy for Proximate Cause 2
- Creates a limit to liability - not just a tenuous link between cause-and-effect.
a. Practicality concern - if we don’t limit liability, it could be traced back to absurd results (if not born, no harm would be done).
b. Fairness - not fair or just to hold someone liable in some cases.
c. Can be arbitrary (recovery for house A, but not for house B).
Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Daniels
Facts
Atlantic RULE
- Proximate cause is a limit to liability
- One of the most important tools to limit liability in negligence
- Most significant hurdles for a P to meet
- Proximate cause is a vague rule in the law- it is not always possible to state a tidy rule
- Rule is more illusive and more of a policy decision on logic, common sense, precedent, and what justice demands
- Asks whether if at some point even can trace back to D, is there liability?
- Takes proximity into account but is a much broader test (Atlantic)
Atlantic POLICY
- Why not just have cause in fact? Does not deter the conduct
- Can go back to the beginning of time and have endless liability on someone
- Absurd if just use cause in fact, cannot go back to all causes, no way to stop this
- Judicial efficiency- what can legally do in the judicial system- practicality
- Deterrence cant work if no way to stop liability
Ryan v. New York Central R.R. Co.
RR Co. negligently maintained its engine, which caught its woodshed on fire. The fire spread to Ryan’s house which burned down. Court held that the fire to the woodshed was proximate, while spread of the fire to adjacent buildings or houses was remote. (Ryan)
Ryan HOLDING
- Court held that “ordinary, natural, expected” consequences create liability, not “unforseeable” damage. Liability ended with the first building that caught on fire.
- House A would be the woodshed and house B would be P’s house.
Since fire landed on woodshed= only natural consequence of fire but spreading to P’s house is not= remote
This is a remote cause so no recovery beyond the first building which was the woodshed.
(Ryan)
Ryan POLICY
- Who is in the best position to insure against harm, D may face ruinously expensive liability, risk of having neighbors/living in society.
- Fairness: Don’t want to subject someone to liability which no prudence could guard.
- May cause punishment beyond the offense committed.
- Risk of loss is a result of living in society.
- “Destruction of society”
(Ryan)
Ryan RULE (unforseen consequences)
A defendant is liable in damages which are proximately caused by the defendant’s negligence, but not liable for damages remotely caused by the defendant’s negligence. (Ryan)
Natural/Ordinary Result:
When likely not anticipated, not a natural and ordinary result. (Ryan)
FORSEEABLITY RULE
- Concept that D is responsible for ordinary consequences of his negligence and not determinative of accidental circumstances.
- Where courts draw the line between natural and unnatural and foreseeable and unforeseeable. (Ryan)
“Proximate Consequences”
Are natural, ordinary, expected consequences- not accidental. (Ryan)
EXAMPLE P. 305:
A can recover but Z cannot.
- Things out of D’s control= less likely to find proximate cause= not the standard for proximate cause= not enough to create liability.
- Possible and not infrequent is not the std for proximate cause.
- A’s house was proximate cause but Z’s was accidental and varying circumstances
- Court would cut off liability at house A.
This is a case of unforeseeable consequences and whether there can still be proximate cause in these situations.
(Ryan)
Natural (Proximate) v. Remote
- Expectedness v. NOT
- Anticipation and Forseeability
(Ryan)
SUB-RULE (Note 1)
NY modified rule to allow recovery of the first adjoining landowner as distinct from first building (which could be D’s own house) or the first property to which the fire jumps, although not adjoining.
(Ryan)
Ryan HYPO: : After woodshed caught fire RR did not try to put it out because wanted a new one anyway. If stuck with Ryan rule is there a way to argue for P to still recover?
- Difference between letting the fire be vs. trying to put it out = could foresee the harm taking place if do not stop the fire.
- There is a duty
- Negligent act and omission different from just letting it burn vs. the accident of it.
Proximate Cause
- IMMEDIATE CONSEQUENCE of the negligent act.
2. “Result was to have been anticipated the moment the fire was communicated.” (Ryan)
Remote Cause
Z’s house, burned by “accidental and varying circumstances” which defendant has no control over. (Ryan)
Possible Alternative Rules
- Revised NY law - first adjacent landowner.
- First property burned (regardless if not adjacent).
(Ryan)
Alternative: Majority
Will be allowed to recover for spreading of fire. (Ryan)
Bartolone v. Jeckovich
Man involved in minor accident suffered from severe psychotic break as a result of the accident. Court held that driver was liable for psychotic break. (Barolone)