Torts Chapter 6 - Proximate Cause

Front 1

Central of Georgia Ry. v. Price

Back 1

D negly let P off @ wrong stop then took her to hotel where lamp exploded injuring her
*IIT (N D RR co.'s negl. in passing P pssngr's stop that caused her burnt hands it was negl. of hotel proprietor in giving her defective kerosene lamp) (an. Richards v. Stanley: car thief IIT) (an. Gilmore: suicidal P's dec. IIT) (dist. Weirum Richardson: EFR)
*N reasonable foresight prox. cause (cons.s of D missing stop were unusual and unforeseeable by D)

Hint 1

No Liability defendant negligently let plaintiff off at wrong stop and then took her to hotel where lamp exploded injuring her

Front 2

Ingham v. Luxor Cab Co.

Back 2

D's cab driver refused to take P all the way to her destination and she tripped injuring self
*NIT (D attempting to walk to dentist appt. from point where cab driver had ejected her didn't constitute an IT b/c it was reasonable under the circ.s) (dist. Central of Georgia Ry. both Ds dropped P off in wrong place; dist: here highly systematic rel. b/w P's injury/BoD)

Hint 2

Liability defendant’s cab driver took disabled plaintiff only part way to her destination and she tripped

Front 3

Mathis v. Granger Brick & Tile Co.

Back 3

D left blasting caps child found them displayed them to mother who N knew what they were and finally passed them to P
*NIT (mom N negl. b/c N a mining mom - had N reason to suspect this was something dangerous; Eric cap finder's companion knew caps were dangerous but didn't know extent of their dangerous character) (an. Smith v. Lampe: D N a sailor and so didn't know he shouldn't blow his horn to ships @ sea when he was on land) (dist. Horton: there mom's knowledge made del. misfeasance/IIT) (dist. Brewster v. Rankin: 4th-grader hitting P w/ golf club N logical cons. of D's giving it esp. b/c of safety trng)

Hint 3

Liability defendants’ employees left live blasting caps at quarry; children found them there; plaintiff acquired cap from a finder; his farming mother saw it and did not confiscate it

Front 4

Donehue v. Duvall

Back 4

D construction company left dirt pile from which children made dirt clods for fights; one put out P's eye
*IIT (dirt N inherently dangerous so harm wasn't reasonoably foreseeable (fact that there was glass in dirt doesn't matter) (dist. Carmona: EFR by aff. providing dangerous thing - N inherently dangerous) (an. Hill v. Lundin Assoc.: ladder N inher. dngrs so harm N reas. foreseeable) (dist. Mathis: NIT - blasting caps inher. dang harm reas. forsbl)
*N EFR (N scarce opp. 4 mischievous kids) (dist. Carmona: created scarce opp. for free radical; here dirt doesn't in itself create opp. for kids any diff. from other opp.s in neighborhood)
*BoD also an issue (N much risk (depends on what burden of hauling it off would be))

Hint 4

No Liability defendant construction company left pile of dirt from which children made dirt clods for fights and one of the children put out the plaintiff’s eye

Front 5

Hastie v. Handeland

Back 5

D negly struck P's deceased hurting his back causing him to go to hospital where he died of infection
*2nd cause (hosp. infection) was either NIT (these infections arise w/o any negl.) (an. Wlasiuk: hitchhiker assailant N interv. tort b/c predictable - EFR or NIT) (an. Mathis: mom N knew so NIT) (dist. Pittsburgh: IIT b/c mom knew and had opp. to prevent; here N poss. to prevent all hosp. infxn) (dist. Cntrl of GA Ry: hotel propr's kerosene lamp IIT)
*or DCE (normal hosp. infxn)
*Successive causation (divisible harms: initial impact harm; then aggregated harm from hospital infection) (an. Maddux: both insolvent driver/D striking P's car succ. divisible)

Hint 5

Liability defendant negligently struck plaintiff’s deceased hurting his back and causing him to go to hospital where he died of infection

Front 6

Sinram v. Pennsylvania R.R.

Back 6

D's tug struck P's barge; bargee failed to inspect; barge sank
*NCP - willful failure to use CP (P's bargee knew barge struck above h2o line should've known injuries might not show by leaks when light; yet for 2 days bargee N inspected then loaded w/ coal) (an. Pittsburgh Reduction Co. v. Horton: mining mom failed to prevent blasting cap harm she should've apprec.) (dist. Weirum: teens were FR's less inclination twd. corrective precaut.) (dist. Carroll Towing: bargee failed to be on barge make sure tied right)

Hint 6

No Liability[For Sinking] defendant’s tug struck one plaintiff’s barge; that plaintiff’s bargee failed to inspect and loaded another plaintiff’s coal onto barge; barge sank with coal

Front 7

Satcher v. James H. Drew Shows Inc.

Back 7

D allowed mental patients to bump P
*EFR (D's attendant left power on bumper car ride though he noticed P's predicament encouraging 15 mentl patients w/ N inclin. twds CP to bump into her) (an. Weirum: teens had N incl. twd CP) (an. Pittsburgh: resp. mining mom should've used CP) (an. Wlasiuk: D should'nt've expected hitchhiker to use CP) (dist. Sinram: resp. bargee should've used CP)

Hint 7

Liability defendant allowed mental patients to bump plaintiff

Front 8

Elbert v. City of Saginaw

Back 8

D negly maintained hole Ps' child fell in
*Either NIT (mom who wasn't watching 2 yr. old son when he escaped into D's open water-filled excavation pit was not negligent at all; b/c children apt to wander into st) (an. Schwartz: parents' failure to prevent P from running into st. NIT b/c D aff. lured P into harm) (dist. Pittsburgh: moms N expected to watch children @ all times but when happen to see blasting cap must use CP take away) (dist. Richards v. Stanley: car thief's action unforeseeable IIT)
*or DCE (mom negl. but N bad/malicious)

Hint 8

Liability defendant negligently maintained hole and plaintiffs’ child fell in

Front 9

Village of Carterville v. Cook

Back 9

D village negly maintained 6–ft–high sidewalk w/o rails; 3d party negly jostled P he fell off
*DCE (bldg 6-ft. sidewalk made P vulnerable to CE) (an. Elbert: city/village creates dangerous sit. and leaves open to potentially negl. acts of 3rd parties - there mom N watching kid) (an. Weirum - both 2nd wrongdoers were irresponsible made CE) (dist. Central of Georgia Ry.: here inadvertent jostling common/expected on sidewalk)
*2 concurrent efficient causes (building high sidewalk w/o railings and boy jostling P)

Hint 9

Liability defendant village negligently maintained six–foot–high sidewalk without rails; third party negligently jostled plaintiff and he fell off

Front 10

Herman v. Markham Air Rifle Co.

Back 10

D manufctrr shipped loaded air rifle customer fired hitting P
*Either NIT; OR (systematic rel. b/w loaded gun and having someone hurt by bullet)
*DCE (customer shouldn't've pulled trigger while handling gun in store where P was stock keeper w/o 1st checking whether loaded)

Hint 10

Liability defendant manufacturer shipped loaded air rifle that customer fired hitting plaintiff

Front 11

Gibson v. Garcia

Back 11

motorist negly collided with D's rotten pole which fell onto P
*DCE (an. Village of Carterville Elbert: Ds had dang. conds making Ps vulnerable to acts of 3rd parties; flip this into Carterville: driver saw his enemy P under pole said Here's my chance b/c I know that pole's rotten. (unexpected malicious act)) (an. Herman v. Markham: custr. should've checked to see whether gun loaded) (dist. Alexander v. Town of New Castle: here fores. that driving dang.ly could injure someone (exact cause needn't be foreseeable - just likelihood of some danger related to negl.) N w/ Heavenridge crim) (dist. Central of GA Ry: N syst. rel. b/w dropping off @ wrong stop/P's hands burned)

Hint 11

Liability motorist negligently collided with defendant’s rotten pole which fell onto plaintiff

Front 12

Cole v. German Savings & Loan Society

Back 12

strange boy impersonated D office bldg's elevator attendant invited P to step into empty elevator shaft
*N spec. rel. (strange boy tresp.)
*IIT (N syst. rel. b/w having boy on prop. who hasn’t exhibited strange behavior before-->entice woman into open el. shaft) (an. Donehue (dirt): N scarce opp. for boy to do mischief; also marginal BoDs in both - hard to see it) (dist. Village of Carterville v. Cook: DCE; syst. rel. b/w high sidewalk/falling from 3d party's comp. error)
*N EFR: D N aff. encouraged him (only nonf. of having in lobby) (dist. Weirum: EFR - clear negl. on part of D in offering dang. contest b/c knew it would induce teens to speed and had evidence of it)

Hint 12

No Liability strange boy impersonated defendant’s elevator attendant and invited plaintiff to step into empty elevator shaft

Front 13

Snyder v. Colorado Springs & Cripple Creek District Ry.

Back 13

P injured when another passenger threw him from D's overcrowded commuter train
*IIT (FR’s conduct went way beyond inducement provided by D’s negligence: D train co. allowed car to become crowded but couldn't've foreseen irritated passenger would throw P out over another's head in response) (dist. Weirum: more of syst. rel; also there bored teens N w/in class of people normally thought to be FR) (an. Donehue: child's conduct thrwng dirt N went way beyond fores. indcmnt by having dirt pile) (an. Cole: strange boy went way beyond predctbl response to D's BoD; a fort: here mature adult so N expected FR) (an. Alexander v. Town of New Castle: Heavenridge throwing went way beyond) (dist. Village of Carterville/Elbert: 3d party's DCE jostling/N watching child foreseeable)

Hint 13

No Liability plaintiff injured when another passenger threw him from defendant’s overcrowded commuter train

Front 14

Philco Radio & Television Corp. v. J. Spurling Ltd.

Back 14

Ds sent celluloid to wrong address where P's employee playfully exploded it with lighted cigarette
*DCE: Mrs. Brady was intentional but more playful than malicious when she touched cigarette to celluloid scrap negligently delivered by D's to P's w/o warning saying it was highly flammable and explosion occurred) (dist. Pittsburgh: parents knew nature of blasting cap and that it was dangerous - more malicious; here Mrs. Brady didn't know she had a corrective precaution opportunity) (an. Mathis)

Hint 14

Liability defendants sent celluloid to wrong address where plaintiffs’ employee playfully exploded it with lighted cigarette

Front 15

Seith v. Commonwealth Electric Co.

Back 15

P injured when police officer flipped D's downed power wire at him electrocuted him
*IIT (N foreseeable to D power co. police officer'd flip wire esp. b/c policeman N flipped wire to remove as source of dang.) (note: would be EFR if one of 2 9-yr.-old girls had flipped it) (dist. Snyder IIT: angry pass/policeman FR went way beyond inducement by D) (dist. Philco: both maybe playful; but here p.o. should've known of harm like Pittsb. mining mom) (dist. Herman v. Markham: p.o's flip intentional/malicious N CE like cust. who N checked to see if gun loaded)

Hint 15

No Liability plaintiff injured when police officer flipped defendant’s downed power wire at him

Front 16

Robison v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc.

Back 16

Ps injured when disabled driver crashed into D's unguarded picnic table
*DCE (predictable an auto driver'd commit CE-->injury to picnickers; OR (N nec. to foresee exact slow learner/dysfunctional starter motor cause just gen. nature of acc (out-of-control car) (dist. Seith: aff. act (placing unguarded pic area in pkg lot) here there nonf.; also there police's flip intentional here unintentional) (an. Bigbee: precise harm (door jam-->drunk driver into phone booth) need N be fores; just gen danger)
*NIT

Hint 16

Liability plaintiffs injured when disabled driver crashed into defendant’s unguarded picnic table

Front 17

Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers Inc.

Back 17

D childcare center’s chain link fence was weak; murderer crashed through it killing two children
*IIT:
>D intentionally driving his car through D childcare center's chainlink fence killing children unfores; esp. given how outrageous it was;
>also BoD prob: fence adeq. to protect children from intrusion;
>finally N record of prior incidents w/ exception of 1 freak accident. (dist. Robison: in both some sort of accident was possible but in Robison general nature of injury was predictable and here it was unpredictable; also in Robison D was negl. if failing to protect picnic area but here childcare center adequately protected children from intrusion) (an. Seith - both police officer and criminal driver acted maliciously/ intentionally whereas in Robison it was negligent or maybe even innocently) (an. Snyder Cole) (dist. Philco)

Hint 17

No Liability defendant childcare center’s chain link fence was weak and murderer crashed through it killing two children

Front 18

McClure v. Allied Stores Inc.

Back 18

*EFR (D's sec. guards negligently chasing free radical shoplifter encouraged shoplifter to run into P; D guards shouldn't've put people in crowded mall @ risk over relatively inexpensive/valueless merchandise) (an. Weirum: a fort: here more foreseeable shoplifter would try to do whatever he could to get away than that teens in Weirum would drive recklessly) (an. Satcher: fores. FR mental patients would keep bumping P if D N stopped ride) (dist. Snyder Cole Bansasine: FRs went way beyond bounds)

Hint 18

Liability defendant’s security guards negligently chased shoplifter who bumped into and hurt plaintiff

Front 19

Robinson v. Post Office

Back 19

P hurt on D's negl.y maintained ladder had bad reaction to negl.y administered dose of anti–tetanus serum
*rescue doctrine (foreseeable T would get ATS injection) (an. Wagner IL Ctrl Hairston)
*NIT: Missing CiF (was BoD for dr. to administer full dose of ATS w/o administering test injection beforehand; but N CiF b/c it took 3 days for P who was allergic to ATS to manifest symptoms; so a test injection shortly before the full injection wouldn't have made allergy apparent (dist. Seith: both did something intentional/malicious; but there pol. off's flip was CiF of inj.)
*2 BoDs: P.O. by not cleaning oil off tar wagon ladder; dr. For not testing ATS injection on P beforehand. These are concurrent efficient as to encephalitis injury (but technically successive causation: P.O. resp. for cut on leg but not dr.)

Hint 19

Liability plaintiff hurt on defendant’s negligently maintained ladder had bad reaction to negligently administered dose of anti–tetanus serum

Front 20

Wagner v. International Ry.

Back 20

D jolted P's cousin out of train P hurt attempting rescue
*Rescue/emergency doctrine (an. IL Ctrl RR Hairston Robinson v. Post Office)
*DCE (it was foreseeable/reasonable for P to go back on bridge to find cousin's body even though deliberate/made judgment error)
*N opp. for V precaut. (P N saw he had a choice; duty required; N could easily avoid risk) (an. Gillilan: mom had to left marble slab) (dist. Adams: there P voluntarily encountered/assumed risk whereas here cousin )

Hint 20

Liability defendant negligently jolted plaintiff’s cousin out of train and plaintiff hurt attempting rescue

Front 21

Hairston v. Alexander Tank & Equipment Co.

Back 21

D1 car dealer failed to tighten wheel lugs on P's new car; when stopped on hwy b/c wheel fell off D2 negly struck good Samaritan’s vehicle killed P
*DCE:
>intvntn of wrongful conduct of others (D2) foreseeable - the very risk D1's conduct created (an. Village of Crtvlle: another's unint. negl. fores./syst. rel.)
>D2 innocent (N realized had opp. for corrective precaut.) (dist. Seith/Richards v. Stanley/Sinram: intvntn of wrongful conduct of others - p.o/thief/bargee's failure to inspect - unfores. b/c intentional; flip into Seith: person driving truck intentionally hit car)
*Misf. (put wheel on wrong - could also be nonf. N tighten lugs) (dist. Richards v. Stanley: more of pure nonf.: N took keys w/ them)
*Succssv causes: 1) D1 car dealer failed to tighten wheel lugs on P's new car 2) D2 negl. Struck good Samaritan's vehicle/killed P.

Hint 21

Liability D1 car dealer failed to tighten wheel lugs on plaintiff’s new car and when car stopped on highway because wheel fell off D2 negligently struck good Samaritan’s vehicle and killed plaintiff

Front 22

Berry v. Borough of Sugar Notch

Back 22

P's speeding carried him to pt where D's tree fell directly on him
*MSR (here N SR) (N relation b/w P traction company motorman speeding in trolley car/D's tree falling on him -trees can fall on top of you whether going fast/slow) (an. Richards v. Stanley: MSR b/w leaving keys in ign thief speeding/crashing into another) (an. Ctrl of GA Ry.: MSR b/w dropping pass off @ wrong stop/her hands burned) (dist. Village of Carterville: SR b/w bldg high unrailed sidewalk/P getting jostled off it)

Hint 22

No Liability [For Contributory Negligence] plaintiff’s speed carried him to where tree fell directly on him

Front 23

Cunillera v. Randall

Back 23

another child pushed P into stream of water which propelled him into D's speeding car
*MSR: N rel. b/w D speeding/Bronx child P being propelled into side of D's moving car (an. Berry: N relationship b/w D's conduct and ultimate harm) (an. Ctrl of GA Ry.: see cell above) (dist. Village of Carterville: see cell above)

Hint 23

No Liability a playmate pushed plaintiff into stream of water which propelled him into defendant’s speeding car

Front 24

Johnson v. Kosmos Portland Cement Co.

Back 24

Ds left explosive gases in ship; lightning blew ship up killing Ps' decedents
*RFH under reas. fore. doct. (exact method of injury need N be foreseen just gen type of harm) (an. Robison v. Six Flags: unguarded picnic area in pkg lot) (an. Carterville: syst. rel.) (dist. Cunillera Wiener Berry: even gen. harm N could be foreseen)
*NIT under direct. Cons. Doct.
*N opp. for V precaut. (Ps N knew expl. gases there)

Hint 24

Liability defendants left explosive gases in ship; lightning blew ship up killing plaintiffs’ decedents

Front 25

Texas & Pacific Ry. v. McCleery

Back 25

*MSR (driver would've had more time in which to see train if it'd been traveling @ reasonable speed but driver was paying N attn - totally oblivious - so he wouldn't see train and would hit train anyway regardless of how fast train was going) (an. Johnson v. Kosmos Cunillera Berry) or
*IIT under dir. cons. doct. (dist. Village of Carterville: DCE)

Hint 25

No Liability defendant’s train was speeding and plaintiff’s driver did not see it

Front 26

Marshall v. Nugent

Back 26

D negly cut corner on icy highway stalling P's car and P struck by another car as he was warning oncoming traffic
*RFH (substantial systematic rel) (it was reasonable P would volunteer to go to top of hill to warn cars to help)
*NIT (if N negl.) or DCE (if negl. It was in innocent way) (rescue dtrn an: Wagner IL Ctrl Hairston)

Hint 26

Liability defendant negligently cut corner on icy highway stalling plaintiff’s car and plaintiff struck by another car as he was warning oncoming traffic

Front 27

Betancourt v. Manhattan Ford Lincoln Mercury Inc.

Back 27

D rented P car w/ overheating problem; it stalled by highway and truck hit P's husb.
*RFH (an. Marshall Johnson v. Kosmos: harm fores.)
*dir. cons: DCE or NIT (rescue dctrn: foreseeable P's deceased would get out to examine engine) (an. Marshall Wagner IL Ctrl Hairston)

Hint 27

Liability defendant rented plaintiff car with overheating problem; it stalled by highway and a truck hit plaintiff’s husband

Front 28

Bryant v. Glastetter

Back 28

D's arrest for drunk driving resulted in P's decedent being called to tow her car which in turn resulted in his death
*MSR (that's driver's job (if N towing D's car would tow another car - equally dangerous) (dist. Betancourt: Ps never would've been next to hwy had it not been for D's negl)
*dir. cons: DCE (an. Philco Elbert)

Hint 28

No Liability defendant’s arrest for drunk driving resulted in the plaintiff’s decedent being called to tow her car which in turn resulted in his death

Front 29

Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. (The Wagon Mound (No. 1))

Back 29

D's spilled bunker oil ignited in harbor damaged P's wharf eqpmnt. etc.
*SDK (Y syst. rel. BUT D's N knew fuel oil on water flammable) (dist. Rylands: both Ds collected something dangerous but there bursting reservoirs were known to cause damage) (dist. Betancourt: RFH: reas. foreseeable)
*dir. cons: NIT (prob.) or DCE (an. Tillett: DCE to let ox wander from hwy into P's shop) (dist. Ellis v. Loftus Iron: NCP - should've fenced horse better)

Hint 29

No Liability defendant’s bunker oil ignited in harbor

Front 30

Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.

Back 30

D's guards negl.y jarred package loose from boarding passenger; it exploded shaking scales onto P
*MSR: hardly any syst. rel. b/w helping passenger board moving train and scales toppling onto P @ other end of platform many ft. away (nothing in pkg.'s appearance suggested explosive contents) (an. Berry Cunillera) (dist. Hairston: failing to tighten lug nuts on wheels-->stall on hwy be rescued)
*direct cons.: could be IIT (extraordinarily reckless act for passenger w/ dynamite-like fireworks under arm to try to board moving train) (an. Snyder Wiener Seith)

Hint 30

No Liability defendant’s guards negligently jarred package loose from boarding passenger; it exploded shaking scales onto plaintiff

Front 31

Harpster v. Hetherington

Back 31

P slipped on Ds' icy porch while searching for dog that escaped b/c of Ds' negl.y failing to fix latch
*MSR (Ds had no duty as repair of back gate was neglected to protect against a fall on the front porch (no matter what the little dog might do).
*dir. cons: NIT (N tort by someone else other than P (only conceivable tort was N removing ice from porch but only ones w/ duty to do that would be D's themselves and they didn't have the duty b/c they were permissibly away))

Hint 31

No Liability plaintiff slipped on ice while searching for dog that had escaped because of defendants’ negligence in failing to fix latch

Front 32

Bahan v. Green Bus Lines Inc.

Back 32

D ran over apparent bleach bottle exploded/splashed acid on Ps
*RFH (precise harm need not be foreseeable just general risk)
*dir. cons: NIT

Hint 32

Liability defendant ran over apparent bleach bottle and acid splashed on plaintiffs

Front 33

Pridham v. Cash & Carry Building Center

Back 33

D negl.y dropped paneling on P; ambul. driver (drvng fast) had heart attack ran into tree killing P
*RFH (amb. drvrs have heart attks lot) (dist. Harper v. Hetherington: tot. unconnected)
*dir. Cons.: NIT or DCE (if driver shouldn't been driving ambulance b/c of heart probs) (also rescue doctrine (P's injuries result of amb driver's normal effort to render nec. aid to P) (an. Wagner IL Ctrl Hairston)
*Successive causation (an. Robinson v. Post Office: Ds N cleaned oil off tar wagon ladder; dr. negly admnstrd ATS serum)

Hint 33

Liability defendant negligently dropped paneling on plaintiff; ambulance driver had heart attack and ran into tree killing plaintiff

Front 34

Ridley v. Grifall Trucking Co.

Back 34

D's giant worn overinflated tire exploded when drove over lg. rocks threw rock at P
*RFH (SR b/w overinflating tires/running over big jagged rocks & flying rocks b/c of trem. pressure) (dist. Hetherington: MSR b/w failing to fix back latch/acc. on front porch)
*dir. cons: NIT

Hint 34

Liability defendant’s worn overinflated and giant tire exploded and threw rock at plaintiff

Front 35

Doughty v. Turner Manufacturing Co.

Back 35

D's employees negl.y let cover slip into hot vat exploded hurting P
*SDK (that slipping in would create steam causing explosion) (an. The Wagon Mound: that oil on h2o flammable) (dist. Barker: foreseeable)
*Dir. cons.: DCE (an. Bryant)

Hint 35

No Liability defendant’s employees let cover slip into hot vat; it exploded hurting plaintiff

Front 36

Hughes v. Lord Advocate

Back 36

D's employees left paraffin lamp unguarded; P child knocked into manhole it blew up
*RFH: fores. that leaving lamps around manhole in bright-colored tent would attract kids (dist. Doughty: there SDK N here even though weird; also fores. risk there only splash harm here kids fall in hole/burned by lamps) (dist. Miele: CTC - slightly less complic/more what u'd expect here) (dist. Elbert: fores. child would wander into st) (dist. Ridley: fores. tire would explode throw rock)
*dir. cons: EFR

Hint 36

Liability defendant’s employees left paraffin lamp unguarded; plaintiff child knocked it into manhole and it blew up

Front 37

Madden v. Ceglio

Back 37

while playing piggyback Ds crashed through plate glass window which hurt P ~ 30 minutes later as she was dealing with bus. prob. acc. created
*MSR (dist. von Schaik: time had passed in both but here P was C negl N there (where P standing on steps @ police instrctns @ smngly safe distance) (an. Davidson Pridham)

Hint 37

No Liability while playing piggyback defendants crashed through plate glass window which hurt plaintiff about 30 minutes later as she was dealing with business problem accident created

Front 38

Amica Mutual Insurance Co. v. Town of Vestal

Back 38

branches D left untrimmed broke its power line which fell on speed limit sign; electricity conducted into gas main which then leaked forming gas pocket which finally exploded blowing up P's house
*CTC; (an. Palsgraf Widlowski) (dist. Pridham: ht attk predict.) (dist von Schaik.: rescue rubble risk predict)
*NIT

Hint 38

No Liability branches defendant left untrimmed broke its power line which fell on speed limit sign; electricity conducted into gas main which then leaked forming pocket of gas which finally exploded blowing up plaintiff’s house

Front 39

United Novelty Co. v. Daniels

Back 39

D permitted deceased to clean vending machine w/ gasoline it exploded after rat intervened
*RFH (same gen. type of harm you would expect from cleaning w/ gasoline - ignition/explosion) (an. von Schaik Ridley: same gen. type of harm u'd expect) (dist. Amica: there CTC - N what u'd expect)
*NIT (rats N subject to tort law)

Hint 39

Liability defendant permitted deceased to clean vendo machine with gasoline and it exploded after rat intervened

Front 40

Chase v. Washington Water Power Co.

Back 40

D failed to move fence off its guywire; chicken hawks completed circuit; electricity conducted to P's barn burned it down
*RFH (people knew birds would cause this type of prob. in area) (an. United Novelty Co: gen. risk known) (dist. Amica Palsgraf Davidson v. Miele: chain N expected)

Hint 40

Liability defendant failed to move fence off its guywire; chicken hawks completed circuit; electricity conducted to plaintiff’s barn and burned it down

Front 41

Steinhauser v. Hertz Corp.

Back 41

Ds negligently crashed into P's car; she got schizophrenia
*RFH: eggshell skull plaintiff: P had latent psychotic tendencies and being in car by D's car precipitated schizophrenia (an. Vosburg v. Putney - eggshell Skull - Ds L N only for what would have normally happened from impact but 4 aggrvtd damages) (an. Bradford: expected chilblains got frostbite)
*(dist. Sinram: IIT there (contr. negl. by P bargee); N IIT (N contributory negl.) here)
*ED: (extends Dillon v. Legg: here P N even watched someone get hurt; there P thought she herself would be hurt: N only was P in zone of impact but she was impacted; so here more w/in core of recovery for ED than there)

Hint 41

Liability defendants negligently crashed into plaintiff’s car; she got schizophrenia

Front 42

Gorris v. Scott

Back 42

D failed to place sheep in pens w/ footholds as required by statute designed to prevent overcrowding; sheep washed overboard in storm
*If the sheep had all died b/c of disease maybe
*N injury results from occurrence of type statute was designed to prevent (to prevent disease N drowning) (an. Romero: gun registr. statute N to prevent guns from being stolen) (an. Selger: wholesome sidewalks/publ. health N ped. safety) (dist. Martin v. Herzog: buggy lt. req. to prevent crashes) (dist. Johnson v. Harris: self-closing latch req. to prev. kids from drowning)

Hint 42

No Liability defendant failed to place sheep in pens with footholds as required by statute designed to prevent overcrowding; sheep washed overboard in storm

Front 43

Osborne v. McMasters

Back 43

D disobeyed statute by failing to label drug poison
*Injury results from occurrence of type statute designed to prevent (an. Martin Johnson v. Harris: see cell above) (dist. Selger v. Steven Bros: to prevent unwholesome N unsafe sidewalk) (dist. Gorris: to prev. disease N sheep drowning)

Hint 43

Liability defendant disobeyed statute by failing to label drug poison

Front 44

DeHaen v. Rockwood Sprinkler Co.

Back 44

D neglected to gate elevator as statute required; radiator fell down shaft killed P's deceased
*Person injured belongs to class of persons the statute was adopted to protect (to prevent person falling down shaft sim. to what happened) (an. Martin v. Herzog Osborne) (dist/flip DiCaprio into this: statute designed to protect children N livestock) (dist. Gorris)
*DCE (innocent negl.)

Hint 44

Liability defendant neglected to gate elevator as statute required; radiator fell down shaft and killed plaintiff’s deceased

Front 45

Lua v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.

Back 45

D left train blocking grade crossing too long P hurt scrambling over
*N Injury results from occurrence of type statute was designed to prevent (Reg. to help flow of traffic prevent frustration; N to keep people from climbing over train) (an. DiCaprio Gorris) (an. DeHaen Osborne)
*Close to IIT case b/c dangerous thing to do (dist. DeHaen: in both acc. was close to what they had in mind; here delib. misf. vs. innocent negl. there) (an. Cole Snyder Bansasine)

Hint 45

No Liability defendant left train blocking grade crossing too long and plaintiff hurt scrambling over

Front 46

Mahone v. Birmingham Electric Co.

Back 46

D deposited P in street instead of on curb as statute required; she landed on banana peel
*N Inj. results from occurrence of type stat. designed to prevent (to prevent getting hit by cars N slipping on banana peel) (an. DiCaprio: to protect cows N children) (an. Lua) (dist. DeHaen) (dist. Osborne)
*MSR. N systematic rel. b/w letting someone off on curb vs. in street and slipping on banana peel (he would actually be safer being let off in st where people are less likely to drop banana peels)

Hint 46

No Liability defendant deposited plaintiff in street instead of on curb as statute required; she landed on banana peel

Front 47

Mangan v. F. C. Pilgrim & Co.

Back 47

D's apt. leased to deceased infested with mice one jumped out of the oven scaring her into fatal fall
*Injury results from type stat. designed to prevent (health statute but ct. extends it to safety) (an. DeHaen: both had harms related to type stat. designed to prevent but N exact type (here more diff.)) (an. Osborne) (dist. Mahone Lua)
*Prox. cause (untaken precaut. generally results in such accs. under circs: place swarming logical one might scare tenant causing injury) *dist. Selger: both more of health than safety issue; here prox. cause more intentional (over ext. per. of time) less opp. for V precaut. spec. rel. (invitor/ee nothing in Selger)

Hint 47

Liability defendant’s apartment leased to deceased was infested with mice and one jumped out of the oven scaring deceased into fatal fall

Front 48

Milligan v. Country Line Liquors

Back 48

D sold minor six–pack of beer; while opening 1st can he struck P
*N Injury results from occurrence of type statute was designed to prevent. (to prevent minors from drinking N from crashing opening beer cans (just as likely w/ can of soda)). (an. Mahone Cunillera) (dist. DeHaen Osborne)
*MSR b/w being distracted opening beer/crashing (would be very syst. Rel. if had been drinking beer)

Hint 48

No Liability defendant sold minor six–pack of beer and while opening first can he struck plaintiff

Front 49

Aguirre v. Adams

Back 49

D negly failed to provide hot water; 17–month old P got into bath filled with boiling water from kitchen
*N inj results from occ. stat. designed to prevent (for tenant's conven N to prevent burning children) (an. Lua Selger) (dist. Mangan Osborne)
*IIT (though less deliberate)

Hint 49

No Liability defendant negligently failed to provide hot water; 17–month old plaintiff got into bath filled with boiling water from kitchen

Front 50

Di Ponzio v. Riordan

Back 50

D gas station failed to make motorist turn off engine while fueling his car rolled forward and injured P
*N Injury results from occurrence of type statute was designed to prevent (designed to prevent exploding car N rolling car) (an. Wawanesa Milligan) (dist. DeHaen Mangan: in both diff. harms happened - designed to prevent person from falling down shaft but person did; but there harm in mind was sim. to actual harm) (dist. Osborne)

Hint 50

No Liability defendant gas station failed to make motorist turn off engine while fueling and his car rolled forward and injured plaintiff

Front 51

Rozz v. Village Auto Body Works Inc.

Back 51

Chain too complicated. Actions of the D are not enough to show negligence.

Hint 51

No Liability for Either Defendant plaintiff’s car damaged avoiding highway debris that one defendant negligently caused to be on highway and which the other defendant failed to pick up in apparent violation of statute