Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key


Play button


Play button




Click to flip

9 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Proximate Cause
-main issue?
-proximate in ____ and ____
-what must lawyer do?
-policy dominated
-proximate in time and space
-advocacy skill - lawyer must persuade jury to use his perspective or lens

-no set of rules - different ways to structure argument in order to limit liability for remote consequences.
Direct Causation
-unbroken sequence of events following negligent act leading to harm
-may result in limitless liability
-hindsight: ex-post inquiry
-foreseeability of damage not relevant
-unforeseeable manner of harm ok
-was result foreseeable? (same rule as that in determining if conduct was negligent to begin with)
-liability can only reach certain extent
-foresight: ex-ante inquiry
-damage must be foreseeable (--> no liability to unforeseeable P)
-unforeseeable manner does NOT prevent liability

"proof of negligence in the air will not do." --> have already established negligence, here must establish causation. Totally separate inquiry.
RS: Extraordinary in Hindsight
-looking back after the event, was it highly extraordinary that D's negligence would bring about P's harm?
-middle approach
-hindsight: ex-post inquiry
-foreseeability not relevant
-consider facts D was not even aware of
Background Risk
-if events surrounding D's negligent conduct have settled down so that extra risks are not imposed to P --> D not liable. (background circumstances settled - cause was remote in time and space)
Intervening Act - Evildoer
-GR - if intervening act is intentionally tortious or criminal - more likely evildoer will be considered independent and superseding
Intervening Act - Suicide
-GR: suicide is NOT superseding
-use irresistible impulse test:
-deceased was unable to resist impulse to destroy himself - suicide is NOT superseding
-deceased was not facing irresistible impulse; could have stopped himself - suicide is superseding

-focus on "irresistible impulse" not was actor aware of deceased's actions
Intervening Act - Rescuer
Rescuer if...
1. D negligent to person rescued
2. D's negligence caused danger or appearance of imminent danger
3. RP would conclude danger existed
4. rescuer acted with reas. care

-rescuer is NOT superseding cause
-rescuer did not assume risk
-foreseeable that someone will attempt to rescue injured
-consistent with policy - want to encourage rescue efforts
1. Fore. Inter. & Fore. Harm
2. Fore. Inter. & Unfore. Harm
3. Unfore. Inter. & Fore. Harm
4. Unfore. Inter & Unfore. Harm
1. Fore. Inter. & Fore. Harm
-GR: D = liable as prox. cause
2. Fore. Inter. & Unfore. Harm
-GR: D = liable as prox. cause;
-exception - evildoer, hard to show fore. was great
3. Unfore. Inter. & Fore. Harm
-GR: D = liable as prox. cause
-examples: Act of God leads to same result
-exception - evildoer (if D did not K/HRTK - no liability)
4. Unfore. Inter & Unfore. Harm
-GR: Superseding Act, D NOT liable