Torts Midterm #2: Proximate Cause

Front 1

DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF DSF

Back 1

Directness test

Substantial factor test

Foreseeability test

Front 2

Restatement (3rd) approach

Back 2

Andrews :) A duty is owed to everyone with foreseeability as one of many components of causation analysis

Risk factor analysis: when analyzing breach, consider the likelihood and severity of potential risks and how difficult it would be to avoid those risks

proximate cause more important than duty b/c everyone owes a duty to be reasonable

Front 3

Directness test

Back 3

act is a cause in fact if there is a direct connection between the act and the injury.

most of the time the connection between defendants act and plaintiffs harm is so close that it is clear cut

chain of causation important in this test.

Front 4

Substantial factor test

Back 4

considers whether the contribution of a party's act was relatively important compared with other but-for causes in producing the harm

1) number of other contributing factors

2) created a chain of causation or potential for chain of causation

3) lapse of time (further in the past = further away from liability)

2nd restatement - foreseeability is not a factor here

Front 5

Foreseeability test

Back 5

majority rule :D

cause in fact is a proximate cause if it is reasonably foreseeable

1) conduct is cause in fact of accident

2) type of accident is a reasonably foreseeable consequence

for duty, foreseeability considers whether the defendants negligent act creates a zone of risk of harm, and for causation, foreseeability looks at the specific details

Front 6

Intervening vs superseding factor

Back 6

intervening - 3rd party's conduct comes after d's act in the chain of causation leading to p's injury

superseding - intervening factor prevents d from being liable

Front 7

Eggshell plaintiff rule

Back 7

Under foreseeability:

if P has unusual weakness, D must pay for damages that could not have been foreseen