Torts Learning Questions - Set 6 Flashcards
Which of the following is correct regarding proximate cause in negligence?
A
Proximate cause is required only when an intervening force contributes to the injury
B
A defendant is liable for all harmful results caused by his acts
C
A defendant is not liable for the harmful results of his conduct that are unforeseeable
D
Proximate cause is not required for a defendant to be liable, but actual cause is required
C
A defendant is not liable when the harmful results of his conduct are unforeseeable. If a defendant’s negligent conduct creates a risk of a harmful result, but an entirely different and totally unforeseeable type of harmful result occurs, most courts hold that the defendant is not liable for that harm.
Proximate cause is required in a negligence action. In addition to being a cause in fact, the defendant’s conduct must also be a proximate cause of the injury. 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.
A defendant is NOT liable for all harmful results caused by his acts. Not all injuries actually caused by the defendant will be deemed to have been proximately caused by his acts. The general rule of proximate cause is that the defendant is liable for only the harmful results that are the normal incidents of, and within the increased risk caused by, his acts (i.e., foreseeable results).
Proximate cause is NOT required only when an intervening force contributes to the injury (indirect cause cases). Even in direct cause cases, the proximate cause doctrine may limit liability in a rare case.
Which of the following statements regarding proximate cause is true?
A
In indirect cause cases, another force comes into play before the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause the injury.
B
A defendant may have proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury even though she did not actually cause it.
C
In direct cause cases, the unusual manner in which the injury occurred is not relevant.
D
Negligence of rescuers generally is not foreseeable.
C
A direct cause case is one where the facts present an uninterrupted chain of events from the time of the defendant’s negligent act to the time of plaintiff’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.
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”).
It is not true that a defendant may have proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury even though she did not actually cause it. In fact, the opposite is true: A defendant may have actually caused the plaintiff’s injury but not have proximately caused the injury, because proximate cause is a limitation on liability.
In indirect cause cases, another force comes into play AFTER the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause the injury.
Which of the following situations involves a common intervening force that courts almost always find foreseeable?
A
A roofer negligently leaves a hammer on the plaintiff’s roof, and a strong wind blows the hammer off the roof, where it strikes the plaintiff
B
A parking lot attendant negligently leaves the keys to the plaintiff’s car inside it with the doors unlocked, and a thief steals the car
C
A defendant negligently causes a plaintiff to break her leg, and while walking on her crutches, the plaintiff loses her balance and injures herself
D
A defendant negligently blocks a sidewalk, forcing the plaintiff to walk in the roadway, where he is struck by a negligently driven car
C
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 defendant’s negligence increased the risk that the force would cause harm to the plaintiff. If a defendant’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.
On the other hand, intervening forces that are normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant’s negligent act are almost always foreseeable. Negligence of rescuers is a common foreseeable intervening force. Generally rescuers are viewed as foreseeable (“danger invites rescue”), so the original tortfeasor is liable for their negligence. Efforts to protect person or property typically are also foreseeable intervening forces. A defendant is usually liable for negligent efforts on the part of persons to protect life or property of themselves or third persons endangered by the defendant’s negligence. A subsequent disease also is commonly a foreseeable intervening force. The original tortfeasor is usually liable for diseases caused in part by the weakened condition in which the defendant has placed the plaintiff by negligently injuring her.
Which of the following situations involves a common intervening force that courts almost always find foreseeable?
A
A roofer negligently leaves a hammer on the plaintiff’s roof, and a strong wind blows the hammer off the roof, where it strikes the plaintiff
B
A parking lot attendant negligently leaves the keys to the plaintiff’s car inside it with the doors unlocked, and a thief steals the car
C
A defendant negligently causes a plaintiff to break her leg, and while walking on her crutches, the plaintiff loses her balance and injures herself
D
A defendant negligently blocks a sidewalk, forcing the plaintiff to walk in the roadway, where he is struck by a negligently driven car
C
If the plaintiff loses her balance while on crutches and injures herself, this involves an intervening force that is a normal response or reaction to the situation created by the defendant’s act. This is a subsequent accident situation, where the plaintiff suffers a subsequent injury following her original injury, and the original injury was a substantial factor in causing the second accident. This is a type of intervening force that courts almost always find foreseeable.
The other situations involve intervening forces that operate on a situation created by a defendant’s negligence but are independent actions, rather than natural responses or reactions to the situation. 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. While these may be found to be foreseeable if the defendant’s negligence created a significant risk that these forces would cause harm to the plaintiff, other types of intervening forces are deemed foreseeable because they are normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant’s act.
Two neighbors who worked in a large city nearby alternated days driving. Because the commute took them through a crime-ridden area, one commuter was vigilant about keeping her car well-maintained, but the other failed to maintain her car or bring it in for servicing, despite the first commuter’s complaints and dashboard warning lights indicating that it needed servicing. One evening after dark when the latter was driving them both home from work, her car died just as they were passing through a dangerous neighborhood. The passenger, who was calling for assistance on her cell phone, protested when the driver opened her door to look at the engine. Two assailants appeared and beat and robbed the driver and passenger.
Does the passenger have a valid claim against the driver for her injuries?
A Yes, because the driver owed her the same increased level of care that a common carrier owed its passenger.
B Yes, because the jury could reasonably conclude that the driver’s negligence increased the risk that the passenger would be the victim of criminal activity.
C No, because independent criminal acts of third persons are considered intervening forces that supersede any negligence by the driver.
D No, because the driver had no duty to prevent criminal attacks on the passenger.
B
The passenger has a valid claim against the driver because the jury could reasonably conclude that she was negligent. The driver owes a duty of ordinary care to his passenger regardless of whether that passenger is paying or not paying. The driver also owed a duty to act as a reasonable person would under emergency circumstances after the car was stopped. Her opening of the car door, as well as her failure to maintain her car, could be found to be negligent under the circumstances. The acts of the criminals were foreseeable, because every day the passenger and the driver commuted through this dangerous neighborhood. (A) is incorrect because this is the standard of care owed to a paying passenger. (C) is incorrect because whether criminal acts of third persons are superseding depends on foreseeability. Here, the criminal activity was foreseeable under the circumstances and therefore does not constitute a superseding cause. (D) is incorrect. The driver owed a duty to her passenger to use reasonable care while in this dangerous area.
A passenger suffered a broken arm from an automobile accident caused by his driver’s negligence in running through a red light. The passenger was taken by ambulance to a nearby hospital for treatment. There, the emergency room physician negligently reset the bone in the passenger’s arm. As a result, the passenger never recovered full use of his arm and his earnings as a carpenter were permanently reduced. The jurisdiction retains traditional contribution rules based on equal shares in cases applying joint and several liability.
If the passenger brings suit against the driver for the damage to his arm, the passenger will recover:
A All of his damages, including the permanent disability, from the driver.
B The portion of his damages attributable to a properly treated broken arm from the driver.
C Half of his damages from the driver under traditional contribution rules.
D All of his damages from the driver only if the passenger joins the negligent doctor as a defendant and the doctor fails to satisfy that portion of the judgment attributable to his negligence.
A
The passenger will recover all of his damages from the driver. Because the damage resulting from medical malpractice was a foreseeable result of the driver’s negligence, the driver is liable for such damage even though the negligent doctor contributed to the passenger’s damages; i.e., the doctor’s negligence is not a superseding cause and therefore does not cut off the driver’s liability for the passenger’s injuries. (B) is wrong because joint and several liability allows the plaintiff to recover all of his damages from one of the joint tortfeasors. (C) is wrong because contribution rules apply only to a defendant who has paid the full judgment to the plaintiff and is seeking contribution from another tortfeasor; they have no relevance to the plaintiff’s recovery against the defendant. (D) is wrong because the passenger could maintain an action for all his damages directly against the driver with no need to join the doctor.
A doorman negligently locked a door that an office worker was intending to use to exit an office building, so the worker was forced to use a different exit. As she stepped onto the sidewalk outside the building, a car careened out of control on the street and jumped the curb. The car struck and injured the worker and then drove off. The driver was not found.
The worker brought suit against the doorman, seeking damages for her injuries. At trial, the parties stipulated that the doorman was negligent in locking the door and that the worker suffered injuries when she was struck by the car. The worker also established that if she had exited from the door she was intending to, she would not have been struck by the car. At the end of the worker’s case, the doorman moved for a directed verdict in his favor.
How should the judge rule?
A Grant the motion, because the driver of the car was the actual cause of the worker’s injuries.
B Grant the motion, because the car was an unforeseeable intervening force.
C Deny the motion, because the jury could find that but for the doorman’s negligence, the worker would not have been injured.
D Deny the motion, because the jury could find that the doorman’s negligence was a foreseeable concurring cause of the worker’s injury.
B
The court should grant the motion because the evidence establishes that the car was a superseding force that cut off the doorman’s liability for his negligence under proximate cause principles. 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. Here, nothing in the facts suggests that a car jumping the curb was a foreseeable consequence of the doorman’s negligently locking the door. Hence, the judge should grant the motion because the worker has failed to establish the proximate cause element of his prima facie case. (A) is wrong because the doorman was also an actual cause of the worker’s injuries—but for the doorman’s negligence, the worker would not have been on the sidewalk where the car jumped the curb. (C) is wrong because it establishes only actual cause. A directed verdict is appropriate because no evidence establishes the proximate cause element of the worker’s case. (D) is wrong because the facts do not establish foreseeability. While the doorman’s negligence was a concurring actual cause of the worker’s injury, it was not a proximate cause because the injury that occurred was unforeseeable.
A law enforcement officer was transporting a prisoner on a plane to testify in a criminal case. Unknown to those on the plane, an assassin hired to kill the prisoner had bribed an airport baggage handler to sneak a timed-release crate of poisonous snakes into the cargo hold of the plane. Once the crate was triggered to open, the snakes were able to slither into the passenger compartment through gaps in the conduits between the cargo hold and the passenger compartment. In the ensuing panic caused by the snakes, the officer was struck in the head by a fire extinguisher that another passenger threw at a snake, and suffered a severe concussion.
The officer filed suit against numerous parties, including the person who designed the conduit system on that type of plane. At trial, evidence established that the design for the conduit system that he used had been rejected in the industry because of the danger of pressure loss between the cargo hold and the passenger compartment. An industry-approved design that the designer could have used would have kept the snakes from getting into the passenger compartment of the plane.
As between the officer and the designer, which party is likely to prevail?
A The officer, because the designer is strictly liable for designing the conduit system of the plane.
B The officer, because of the high degree of care owed to passengers of a common carrier.
C The designer, because the assassin’s actions were an unforeseeable intervening force.
D The designer, because the officer was injured by another passenger rather than a snake.
C
The designer will prevail because the assassin’s actions were an unforeseeable intervening force. To establish a prima facie case for negligence, the following elements must be proved: (i) the existence of a duty on the part of the defendant to conform to a specific standard of conduct for the protection of the plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of injury; (ii) breach of that duty by the defendant; (iii) the breach of the duty by the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and (iv) damage to the plaintiff’s person or property. 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. Here, the designer, as a professional designing a component of a plane, owed a duty of care to passengers such as the officer. He breached that duty of care by using a design for the conduit system that had been rejected in the industry because of the danger of pressure loss. His breach was the actual cause of the officer’s harm because, but for his use of that design, the snakes would not have gotten into the passenger compartment of the plane. However, the conduct of the assassin in causing snakes to be placed on the plane is an unforeseeable intervening force. While criminal acts of third persons may be foreseeable if the defendant’s negligence increased the likelihood of the crime being committed, there is nothing to suggest that the designer’s negligence had any influence on the assassin’s conduct. Hence, that conduct cuts off the designer’s liability to the officer for the negligent design of the conduit system. (A) is incorrect. To establish strict tort liability, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is a commercial supplier of a product. The designer, however, provided a service of designing a conduit system in a plane; because the facts do not suggest that he is a commercial supplier of a product, he cannot be held strictly liable. (B) is incorrect. Even assuming that the designer would be held to the high degree of care that common carriers owe their passengers, the officer must still establish the other elements of the tort. As discussed above, he would not be able to establish proximate cause under these facts. (D) is incorrect because the response by the other passenger is a foreseeable “reaction” force that does not cut off the causal connection between the act and the harm. If the designer were deemed to be a proximate cause of the snakes getting into the passenger compartment, the fact that the officer’s injury was caused by the reaction of another passenger rather than a snakebite would not matter.
