5. Proximate Cause

Front 1

Proximate Cause (definition)

Back 1

Consequences along an unbroken chain from the negligent act are natural and proximate

(w/o an intervening cause)

Front 2

Two major PC factors

Back 2

1. Remoteness

2. Foreseeability

Front 3

1.a. Remoteness

Back 3

Parties are not liable for the remote results of their negligence, only the proximate consequences.

(Think spreading of fire to other buildings was a remote result; only liable for the first one)

Front 4

1.b. Intervening Acts

Back 4

If an intervening act is foreseeable, chain is probably not broken (liability)

But if it is unforeseeable & "highly extraordinary," it's a superseding cause and the chain is broken (no liability)

Front 5

TEST FOR SUPERSEDING & INTERVENING CAUSES

Back 5

Would the reasonable person in like circumstances have foreseen that the cause would intervene.

Front 6

Dependent IC vs. Independent IC

Back 6

Dependent: one that operates in response to the stimulus of the negligent conduct (less likely to break the chain)

Independent: More likely to be a superseding cause (& more likely to break the chain)

Front 7

2. Foreseeability (Rule)

Back 7

Wagon Mound 1: liability is only imposed within the ZONE OF FORESEEABLE RISK

Front 8

a. Foreseeability of Manner & Extent

Back 8

Foreseeability of manner and extent do not matter as long as the injury is still foreseeable

Front 9

b. "Thin Skull" Rule

Back 9

∆ can be held liable for aggravation of π's preexisting condition.

Doesn't matter that the condition might have occurred even if accident had not

Front 10

c. Foreseeability of π (& exception)

Back 10

π must fall within the class of persons who could foreseeably be injured as a result of ∆'s acts for ∆ to be liable. Must show that ∆ owed PLAINTIFF a duty (Palsgraf)

Exception: Immensely dangerous acts like shooting

Front 11

Intentional Negligence & Criminal Acts (rule)

Back 11

Intentional Negligence DOES NOT break the causal chain if it is foreseeable

However, criminal conduct IS more likely to break the causal chain (but not necessarily)

Front 12

Serving Alcohol (2 rules)

Back 12

Dram Shop Action: Liability for continually serving someone who is already visibly intoxicated & injures someone else

Social Host: Drinking, not furnishing, is the SOLE prox. cause of injury. It is a superseding cause. (Exception when serving minors)

Front 13

3. Rescue Doctrine

Back 13

Allows an injured rescuer to sue the party that caused the danger requiring the rescue in the first place.

Front 14

Achieving Rescuer Status under RD (4 elements)

Back 14

1. ∆ was negligent to the person rescued & it caused the peril (or appearance of peril)

2. The peril or appearance of peril was imminent

3. A RPP would have concluded such peril or appearance of peril existed

4. Rescuer acted w/ reasonable care in rescuing

Front 15

Shifting Responsibility (rule & exception)

Back 15

When ∆ has negligently created a risk of harm to π, failure of 3rd party to intervene and take action to prevent the harm WILL NOT affect ∆'s liability.

Even if the 3rd party was under a duty to π, ∆ is still liable

Aggravation of injury: if 3rd party aggravates injury caused by ∆, ∆ is liable for any additional injury that occurs

Exception 1: When risk created by original ∆ is "terminated" by acts of another party