T11 Prox Cause Flashcards
PROXIMATE CAUSATION
In addition to being a cause in fact, the defendant’s conduct must also be the proximate cause of the injury.
Even though the conduct actually caused the plaintiff’s injury, it might not be deemed to be the proximate cause.
Thus, the doctrine of proximate causation is a limitation of liability and deals with liability or nonliability for unforeseeable or unusual consequences of one’s acts.
The general rule of proximate cause is that the defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of, and within the increased risk caused by, his acts.
An indirect cause case is one where the facts indicate that a force came into motion after the time of defendant’s negligent act and combined with the negligent act to cause injury to the plaintiff.
Whether an intervening force will cut off the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s injury and be deemed superseding is determined by foreseeability
INTERVENING FORCE TEST:
- IF Natural responses or reactions to the situation = foreseeable, do NOT break the chan.
This is an intervening force that is a normal response or reaction to the situation created by the defendant’s act.
These types of intervening forces are deemed foreseeable because they are normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant’s act.
- IF Independent actions = Not foreseeable, do break the chain.
An independent negligent act of a third person, a criminal act of a third person, and an act of God are all independent intervening forces.
These may be found to be foreseeable ONLY if the defendant’s negligence created a significant risk that these forces would cause harm to the plaintiff. Whether these are superseding depends on foreseeability.
General Rule: Foreseeability test
Was outcome foreseeable risk associated with breach?
A defendant generally is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by their negligent acts.
This is a foreseeability test. (was the harm that occured foreseeable?
If question is whether one or both parties are entitled to summary judgment—
Should be denied if there is any issue of foreseeability for the jury.
COMMON FORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES
The D is liable when their negligence caused a foreseeable reaction from an intervening force or created a foreseeable risk that an intervening force would harm the plaintiff.
Intervening forces that are normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant’s negligent act are almost always FORESEEABLE.
The following intervening forces that ARE normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant’s negligent act are almost always foreseeable:
D is Liable for these (D is still the proximate cause):
• Medical malpractice
• Negligence of rescuers
• Protection or reaction forces to the D’s conduct, including efforts to protect person or property
• Subsequent Disease or accident substantially caused by the original injury
Intervening forces that ARE NOT just a natural response or reaction to the situation created by the defendant’s conduct MAY BE foreseeable IF the D’s negligence increased the risk of harm from these forces.
These intervening forces include:
(1) negligent acts of third persons,
(2) crimes and intentional torts of third persons, and
(3) acts of God.
Ex: Valet leaves the keys in a car, and a thief steals the car, the valet may be liable bc the thief’s conduct may be considered a foreseeable intervening force.
Foreseeability Guidelines
• Passage of time
• Geographic distance
• Prior occurence.
Superseding Forces
Intervening forces that produce unforeseeable results (results not within the increased risk created by the D’s negligence) are generally deemed unforeseeable and superseding.
Superseding forces break the causal connection between the defendant’s initial negligent act and the plaintiff’s ultimate injury, thus relieving the D of liability.
For example, if the D negligently blocks a road, forcing the P to take an alternate road, and then another driver negligently collides with the plaintiff on this road, the other driver’s conduct is an unforeseeable intervening force because the D’s negligence did not increase the risk of its occurrence. Thus, the other driver is a superseding force that cuts off the defen- dant’s liability for the original negligent act of blocking the road.
Direct Cause case vs INDIRECT Cause Case
A direct cause case is one where the facts present an uninterrupted chain of events from the time of the D’s negligent act to the time of P’s injury.
If a particular harmful result was at all foreseeable from the defendant’s negligent conduct, the unusual timing of cause and effect or the unusual manner in which the injury occurred is not relevant to the defendant’s liability.
In indirect cause cases, another force comes into play AFTER the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause the injury.
Negligence of rescuers
Negligence of rescuers is generally foreseeable because a rescue attempt is a common intervening force that is a normal response or reaction to the situation created by the defendant’s negligent act (i.e., “danger invites rescue”).
Criminal acts of third persons
While criminal acts of third persons are intervening forces that operate on the situation created by the defendant’s negligence, they are independent actions rather than natural responses or reactions to the situation.
This type of intervening force may BE FORESEEABLE, but ONLY WHEN the plaintiff can show that the D’s negligence increased the risk that the force would cause harm to the P. If a D’s negligence created a foreseeable risk that a third person would commit a crime, the defendant’s liability will not be cut off by the criminal act.
An independent negligent act of a third person, a criminal act of a third person, and an act of God are all independent intervening forces.
