Scope of Liability/Proximate Cause Flashcards
PxC - Type of harm
What are the 3 categories of proximate cause?
- Type of harm
- Manner of harm
- Extent of harm
PxC - Type of harm
How to assess type of harm
Did P suffer a type of harm that was within the foreseeable risks created by D’s negligent conduct
If the plaintiff is UNFORESEEABLE, deal with it in DUTY
PxC - Type of harm
What is the approach to assessing Type of Harm?
- What was the type of harm?
- Identify the risks that could foreseeably occur from D’s negligent conduct
- What is the harm that P actually suffered?
- Was P’s actual harm within the foreseeable risks that could come from D’s negligent conduct?
PxC - Type of harm
What is the “Foreseeable consequences test?”
D is liable when the accident is
1. The kind that is a foreseeable result of D’s negligent conduct, and
2. The harm suffered is within the general class of harm one would reasonably anticipate might result from D’s conduct
PxC - Type of harm
What is the “risk standard?”
D is liable for P’s harm if P’s harm arose from the general type of danger that was one of the risks D should have taken reasonable steps to avoid
PxC - Manner of Harm
When do you use “manner of harm?”
When something has happened to sever the connection between D’s negligent conduct and P’s injury. Time? Space? Intervening, superseding force?
PxC - Manner of Harm
What must happen assess “manner of harm?”
- What is the specific breach? What was the resulting harm?
- Did something happen between the conduct and the harm? (if yes, identify the intervening coduct)
- Was the intervening conduct superseding?
PxC - Manner of Harm
What are the 3 types of superseding conduct?
- Foreseeable
- Obviously unforeseeable
- Debatable
PxC - Manner of Harm
Define a “superseding force”
So highly improbable and extraordinary an occurrence as to bear no reasonable connection to the harm threatened – FREAKISH & BIZARRE.
The greater the culpability, the more likely it is superseding
PxC - Manner of Harm
Examples of foreseeable (not superseding forces)
- Car accidents
- Medical Malpractice
- Weather
- Negligent conduct = less culpable = less likely to be superseding
Define the shifting responsibility rule
If a situation involves the initial negligence of a first party and the subsequent negligent conduct of another party, the question arises whether the responsibility for the harm should be borne by both parties or shifted entirely to the second party
How to approach the shifting responsibility rule
- Are there multiple defendants?
- Are they both negligent and the cause of P’s harm?
- Is D2’s conduct an intervening cause?
- Is D2’s conduct superseding?
- If all answer are yes, determine if all liability should shift to D2 and relieve D1 from liability by REVIEWING THE FACTORS
What are the factors for shifting responsibility?
- The culpability of the intervenor
- The competence and reliability of the person upon whom reliance is placed
- The intervenor’s understanding of the facts of the situation
- The seriousness of the danger
- The number of persons likely to be at risk of the danger
- The length of time elapsed between the conduct of the various parties
- The likelihood that proper care will be used
- The ease with which each of the parties can take precautions
PxC - Shifting Responsibility
Define the Medical Complication rule
The law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer as the proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent negligent or unskillful treatment - D1 cannot be relieved from liability if there are complications
PxC - Extent of Harm
Define how extent of harm is handled
D’s liability will not be reduced just because P is more susceptible to injuries - you take you victim as you find them
