Superseding Cause and Economic Loss Doctrine

Question 1

Superseding Cause

Answer 1

• issue arises when act of third person (or some other force) intervenes in chain of causation connecting def’s wrongdoing to pl’s injury -> raises q of whether intervening act cuts off def’s liability for pl’s harm

Question 2

McLaughlin v. Mine Safety Appliance Co. - Facts

Answer 2

• 1962
• little girl almost drowns -> firetruck arrives + uses heat blocks
• heat blocks applied by nurse directly to girl’s skin, but removed from package (which had instructions on usage) by firefighter
• firefighter had witnessed demonstration about need to insulate blocks from direct contact w/ skin
• girl gets 3rd degree burns

Question 3

McLaughlin - Holding

Answer 3

• def not held liable b/c of intervening act of fireman, who had actual knowledge of the danger of improper usage + passed product onto 3rd party w/o warning

Question 4

McLaughlin - Dissent

Answer 4

• argues manufacturer should’ve anticipated warning on container might get discarded + put warning directly on the block
• still liable if you realized a 3rd person intervening might act negligently (intervenor’s negligence doesn’t supersede if actor should’ve realized at time of og reg that an intervenor might act negligently)

Question 5

Sheridan v. US

Answer 5

• 1988, SCOTUS
• cited in book for basic rule applicable for injury arising from more than 1 wrongful act
• if likelihood of intervening act was one of the hazards that made defendant’s conduct negligent (ie it was sufficiently foreseeable that def’s conduct would have this effect) then def generally liable for the consequences

Question 6

Modern Approach to Superseding Causes

Answer 6

• rise of comparative negligence means generally apportion liability among multiple defendants

Question 7

Godesky v. Provo City - Facts

Answer 7

• 1984
• pl was electrocuted while working on a roofing job
• the utility co that owned + operated the electrical system with the wire he grabbed gets assigned 70% blame by jury - could have foreseen the harm from where the wires placed, building owner assigned 20%, + roofing co 10%
• electrical co tries to argue roofing co’s negligence was the sole proximate cause

Question 8

Godesky - Holding + Reasoning

Answer 8

• upholds jury verdict
• comparative fault eval - jury should take into account ll negligence + weigh culpability, rather than having sole proximate cause as a matter of law
• intervening act doesn’t automatically = superseding cause that relieves actor of liability
• “proper test is whether the subsequent negligence was foreseeable by the earlier actor” (earlier actor charged w/ foreseeable negligence of others)

Question 9

Cheapest Cost Avoider

Answer 9

• law should essentially target whoever is best-positioned to prevent the harm
• structural vs. situational - structural CCA = whoever can avoid the harm at the broadest level, vs. situational CCA = whoever has the best chance of avoiding it in the particular scenario

Question 10

Dramshop Liability

Answer 10

• deals w/ cases in which one party provides liquor to another who then becomes intoxicated + commits a tort
• Largo Corp v. Crespin (1986) - here, indiv. served 10-13 beers at def’s bar, suffered blackouts

Question 11

Largo Corp. v. Crespin

Answer 11

• 1986
• indiv. served 10-13 beers at def’s bar, suffered blackouts + stumbled into stuff -> left + drove into oncoming traffic, killing pl’s husband
• court ultimately holds def liable for selling the alcohol - even though consumption of the alcohol = proximate cause, can sue provider b/c any reasonable person would foresee danger of intoxicated indiv

Question 12

Economic Loss Doctrine

Answer 12

• if 3rd party experiences only financial/economic loss, they generally cannot recover from the def., even if foreseeable
• general rule is that you need some sort of physical harm, not just pure economic, to recover in negligence

Question 13

Barber Lines v. Donau Maru

Answer 13

• 1985
• oil spill caused by def
• another ship, Tamara, prevented from docking + had to discharge cargo elsewhere -> incurred significant financial costs
• pl DOES NOT get to recover b/c only financial harm

Question 14

Donau Maru - Rationale for Economic Loss Doctrine

Answer 14

• pragmatic/practical administrative considerations - # of people suffering foreseeable financial harm in an accident likely to be much greater than those who suffer traditional, recoverable physical harm - more pl’s would mean higher admin. cost
• financial harms might be able to be compensated in other ways (insurance, contract)
• disproportionality between liability + fault - notion that tort provides powerful econ incentives + expanding class of harms for which defs held accountable might lead to perverse econ incentives (ex of impossibly high auto premiums)

Question 15

Donau Maru - Rule Articulated

Answer 15

General principle against liability for negligently caused financial harm except for nine exceptions (largely cases in which either admin + disproportionality problems inherently insignificant or some strong countervailing consideration):

• accompanying physical harm
• intentionally caused harm
• defamation
• injurious falsehood
• medical costs paid by a different family member
• neg. misstatements about financial matters
• master and servant
• telegraph addressee
• commercial fishermen as “special favorites of admiralty”