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

94 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
4 Elements of Negligence
1. Injury - must be recognized by law as being an injury (Some places recognize mental injury)
2. Duty – recognized legal duty to class of persons including Pl.
3. Breach
4. Cause

(or "I'm getting a B, C, or D in this class")
Two types of Cause required for negligence?
a) Actual cause - Would the injury not have happened “but for” the Def’s action. Did the way def. acted cause the injury?
b) Proximate cause (legal cause) - Is there a close enough connection to hold Def. liable in Court? Is the injury the general type of injury that can be expected to be caused by what def. did.
Generally a Matter of Law (for Judge) or Fact (for Jury)?
Injury: Usually FACT for jury
Duty: Usually LAW for judges
What is the General Duty owed to other people?
A duty of Reasonable Care to avoid physical injury to people who are foreseeably endangered by D’s conduct. (Heaven v. Pender)
This is an OBJECTIVE standard, but takes physical characteristics (like blindness and size) into account as well as circumstances (split second emergency decisions), but NOT mental attributes.
What are the 4 special limited duties?
Premises liability, pure economic damages, duty to rescue (failure to act), Emotional Distress
Difference between Malfeasance and Nonfeasance?
Malfeasance: Acting badly and harming others. Tort law generally allows recovery for this
Nonfeasance: Failing to act. Tort law generally does not allow recovery for this except in special circumstances (limited duties eg.)
Sometimes one can be reclassified as the other in order to reach the desired outcome (Maintaining a building badly instead of failing to maintain it)
Winterbottom v. Wright
P sued coach mfg although he bought from retailer
The court dismissed the suit because there was no privity between the plaintiff and the manufacturer.
Thomas v. Winchester
P thought she was buying medicine, but actually bought poison. court says the privity requirement of Winterbottom is still valid, but an exception can be carved out when the product being sold is inherently dangerous

Possible reasons for distinction:
(a) Imminence of harm (coach took a year to break down, poison works right away)
(b) Inevitable harm
(c) Otherwise distribution system would immunize defendant
MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.
Mfg has duty if the product manufactured is inherently dangerous & will be used by further people without inspection (car had extra seats); dispenses with privity as a requirement in these situations:
Elements of duty w/o privity:
(a)Danger of product
(b)Knowledge that other people will use the product (court says USER a lot -- not clear if court would allow bystander to recover)
(c)w/o opportunity to inspect - Def could have said that dealer had a duty to inspect
Mussiand v. David
Dr. sleeps with P's wife and gives her the Tort. P gets the Tort. Sues Dr.
Only a duty to the booty, and those she would foreseeably sleep with (ie. her husband). Dr. is liable because it was foreseeable that P would get the Tort, so P is liable.
Also: Bitch is Guiiiiiilteeeeeeee!
Define the three types of visitors to land
Trespasser: No right to be on the land. (remaining after exceeding license also turns an allowed visitor into a trespasser)
Licensee: One who came on the land with the owner’s consent, but as a guest (Social guests/friends)
Invitee: People who come onto land open to the public. But they are only invitees insofar as they are on the land for the purpose it was held open (girlscouts selling cookies, museum guests, etc)
Modern Duty of care owed to trespassers
Duty not to intentionally/recklessly/wonton cause harm (ie. you see them and run them over anyway)
Exceptions where more duty is owed to a Trespasser?
1) Attractive nuisance: If trespasser is a child who was attracted to something on the land (Restat. says this applies to artificial conditions, takes no position on natural ones)
2) If owner has constructive or actual knowledge of a trespasser, owner is required to use reasonable care to avoid harm and has a
Duty to warn of hidden dangers .
3)If owner knows trespassing generally happens or is likely to happen on a certain portion of the land, he owes a duty of ordinary care with respect to that portion (ie. a path right near the border)
Modern Duty of care owed to Licensees?
1) Owner owes duty of reasonable care to warn of non-obvious dangerous conditions which owner knew or should have known about.
2) However, owner has no duty to inspect premises to find unknown or hidden dangers.
Generally, licensee “takes the premises as he finds them.”
Modern Duty of care owed to Invitees?
1) Due care (so long as they are still on the land for the purpose it was held open - you don't count if you stay around after closing time eg.)
2) Not only duty to warn of dangerous conditions, but duty to remedy those conditions
3) Owner responsible for conditions of which she was unaware if she could have discovered them through reasonable inspection
Duties regarding natural hazards on your property?
a) Rural Setting: Owner has no duty to remove it or guard against it, even if it poses an unreasonable danger of harm to persons outside the property
Trees: A few cts req reasonable care in all settings regarding trees
- In urban area, trees count as "artificial"
Duty regarding artificial hazards on your land?
a) Owner has a general duty to prevent an unreasonable risk of harm to persons outside the premises from artificial things on their land (a stone wall eg.)
b) Natural objects that are moved onto the prop are considered "artificial"
Parasitic Economic Loss:
Lost profits resulting from damage to property (which you OWN or have a proprietary interest in - RENTING is not good enough). Ie. Oil spill damages my boat and I can't run my water taxi service for a week.
Most courts will allow recovery for this.
Pure Economic Loss:
Lost profits resulting from damage to something does not own (chartered ferry crashes before pickup and I lose a profit from a gig because I am late)
Courts are very hesitant with this because it is hard to draw bright lines showing where the damage ripples stop
When might a court allow recovery for pure economic loss?
1) When the P has a "permanent" interest in the property damaged, even though it is not a real proprietary interest. (eg. Testbank - Fishermen recovered for damage to the fish populations (not to their boats) caused by toxic chemicals)
2) When the pure economic harm is EXTREMELY foreseeable (eg. Jerr: Recovery allowed when builder took too long repairing D's store. The loss was foreseeable and there was a "closeness" between builder's negligence and P's loss. Vague standard)
What is the general duty to rescue?
There is no general duty to rescue, BITCH!
When IS there a duty to rescue/help? (list them)
1) D tortiously causes P to need help. (rest. view is that even innocent acts causing P to need help trigger this duty)
2) D voluntarily undertakes to help P
3) Good Samaritan statutes
4) Special relationship
List the special relationships that may give rise to a duty to protect/help (7, plus one "no-duty")
(a)sea capn or other common carriers (trains, etc),
(c)anyone who has taken charge of someone/charge (ie therapist, doctor etc)
(e)schools/young kids,
(f)spouses (maybe),
(g)parents (maybein some states),
(h)NOT friends, workingmen (Farwell case)
Theobald v. Dolcimascola
Friends of decedent watched him play Russian roulette owed him no duty of care and are not liable for his death
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (facts)
Therapists owe a duty to third parties to warn them if the therapist’s patient threatens the third party and if it is foreseeable that the patient will follow through on his threat
Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California (7 factors that showed duty to protect)
1.Foreseeability of harm to π
2. Certainty that π WAS injured
3. Closeness between ∆’s conduct and the injury suffered
4. The moral blame attached to ∆’s conduct
5. The policy of preventing future harm
6. The extent of the burden to the ∆ and consequences to the community of imposing a duty
7. Availability of insurance
McGuiggan v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co
Party guest gets drunk and later gets hit by a phone pole while leaning out of a car window.
1) Court rejects common law view that: a drinker’s voluntary consumption of alcohol is the “proximate cause” of the third-party’s injury and that a social host isn’t liable to the third-party.
2) Instead says social host IS liable to a third party if he knew or should have known the guest/driver was drunk.
3) Hosts were a proxy for the D (phone co's) liability
You are drunk. I toss you my car keys. Am I liable for your crashing into Taco Bell?
1)In some states (NY) statutes put extra liability on owners who give permission to others to drive, who drive negligently (like kids).
You are driving, I'm riding shotgun. You are driving like a Kennedy on Martha's Vineyard. Do I have a duty to stop you?
If I am a passenger in a car and you are driving erratically, I have NO duty to stop you.
But if I own the car, I have a duty to stop you.
If Jack hamstring's Kama with a broken bottle, is Lindsay liable? (rule and exceptions)
Generally NO. (because she's a whore) Parents are not liable for the torts of their children.
1) SOME courts - if the child had a known propensity for THIS sort of behavior, there might be duty (but its usually hard to prove that the breach was the prox cause of the injury)
2) If you lend a teenager a car, you are liable if he causes injury with it.
When James is sued for waterboarding an old lady next year, will Eliza be liable?
NO. One spouse is not liable for the tort committed by the other. No duty b/c spousal confidentiality and society doesn’t acknowledge that one spouse controls the other.
What are 4 rules for NIED that have been used by different jurisdictions?
1) Impact Rule
2) Zone of Danger
3) Bystander (Dillon)
4) Bystander (Thing)
NIED Impact Rule:
P can only recover for emotional distress if the distress is predicated upon some physical impact. (Wyman v. Leavitt) - mostly disgarded
The impact must be "meaningful" (unclear standard)
NIED Zone of Danger Rule
1) P is physically endangered
2) P has physical problems as a result of being physically endangered
3) P feared for her own life/safety
Restatement adopts this.
Robb v. Pennsylvania Railroad (facts and maj/min reading of case)
Train wreck caused a woman to stop lactating. Court rejects impact rule in favor of zone of danger rule.
1) Majority reading: Physical injury is proof of mental injury. But the mental injury is what you recover for.
2) Alternate reading: if mental injuries cause a physical injury (stop lactating), the physical injury is what you recover for
Worker watched his friend die of heat and had to go back to work near corpse.
No recovery under Zone of Danger rule because:
1) He was not in the danger zone himself.
Had he been, he may have been able to recover for pure fright.
Beul v. Asse
German exchange student raped by host family (jury finds her 38% sexy).
a) Duty - Exch Std org was standing in loco parentis. Like a undertaking case
b) Evidence of Breach shown by govt regulations and prof. Assoc standards not followed, which points to lack of due care. (evidence, not dispositive)
DEFENSE: Def. had a defense of “intervening criminal act. But it fails, b/c if the Def.’s behavior was negligence BECAUSE of the chance of a 3rd party’s criminal act, that is no defense
NIED Bystander rule (general)
Bystanders who suffer mental distress as a result of someone else's injury (but are not in the danger zone themselves) may recover if their mental distress was FORESEEABLE.
Your friend is killed right next to you while you're asleep. You wake up, see the corpse and are afraid/distressed. Can you recover under NIED bystander rule?
NO. Recovery requires contemporaneous awareness of the event/injury which caused the distress (sort of like assault and false imprisonment)
Dillon Bystander Rule (elements of foreseeability)
1) P must be located in close proximity to accident;
2) Shock must result from a direct emotional impact upon P from the “sensory & contemporaneous observance” of the accident, not just from hearing about it;
3) Victim must be closely related
4) Physical manifestation of distress
NIED Bystander Rule (Thing)
1) P must be physically present at the scene of the accident
2) P and victim be closely related (same household, or parent, grandp, sib)
3) P suffers more distress than a disinterested person would (distress can’t be abnormal—distress must be reasonable)
Moch v. Rensselaer Water Company
During fire, there was no water in one of the hydrants so the city sued.
1) Cardozo felt the PUBLIC POLICY reasons for rejecting the existence of a duty outweighed the benefits to the city. If the water co. were liable it would end up raising costs for everyone. The standard is GROSS negligence, and the water co, survives this.
2) Reconstrues it as NONfeasance instead of misfeasance to avoid find ing a duty (cheap trick)
Strauss v. Belle Realty Co: Same thing - court wants to avoid "catastrophic" loss to public utility (ConEd) for policy reasons and so finds no duty.
Rogers v. Retrum
School lets seniors go off campus. Kid crashes car while off campus (stormed out of class).
Court contrues the DUTY as “the obligation to act reasonably in the light of foreseeable and reasonable risks.” and then finds that it wasn't breached because the crash wasn't a foreseeable result of their policy.
This preserves the school duty, but lets the school off the hook in this case.
What is the standard used to determine breach of the ordinary duty of reasonable care? (and define)
The Reasonable Person standard:
1) Was the conduct of the Δ reasonably careful?
2) Compare the Δ’s conduct to how an ordinary person, acting reasonably, would have behaved under the circumstances
What are the policy justifications for the Reasonable Person standard?
a) If D and P are both “morally innocent”, you should still pin liability on person who “caused” the damage (This leads to strict liability)
b) By engaging in activity with less than reasonable care, D subjected P to unreciprocated risk.
c) Admin reasons: objective standard easier to define, trials less complex, hinder false claims, decrease jury error
Timmy, a blind, midget, tard swerves his tricycle to avoid a bike that came out of nowhere, and in doing so, runs into James, breaking his face. What can the jury take into consideration in assessing if Timmy acted reasonably?
His stature, his blindness, and the emergency nature of the situation, but NOT his ree-tee status.
Physical characteristics and the nature of the situation (split second decisions, eg) are taken into account, but mental characteristics are not.
Why are mental disabilities generally not taken into consideration in the Reasonable person standnard?
1) Encourage caretakers to take better care of the person
2) Mental disabilities are hard to identify outwardly (unlike blindness, or lameness eg) so people aren't "on notice".
What is Reasonable Person standard with respect to emergency situations? (and any exceptions)
1) "What would a reasonable person acting in this emergency do?"
2) But a D still has to act REASONABLY (maybe a lower standard during a near car collision, but you can't do something crazy)
Exception: if the emergency situation is due to D’s negligence, then the regular Reasonable Person standard applies
Reasonable Person standard for a drunk person?
The standard is a "reasonable sober person". "But dude, I was drunk" doesn't fly anymore. College is over.
General Reasonable Person standard for Minors? Exceptions?
A child of like age and experience under the circumstances.
1) If the child was engaged in a dangerous activity usually only pursued by adults (driving a forklift eg.)
2) (SOME COURTS) Tender Years Doctrine: Children under 7 can't be negligent at all.
How do you sue parents for a child's negligence? (doctrine - requirements)
Negligent Parental Supervision:
1) Parents were aware of specific instances of child’s misbehavior; AND
2) Parents had an opportunity to control child
Reasonable person standard for people of exceptional abilities? And rationale?
The law will hold you to the same standard that you publicly hold yourself to.

SOME Courts:
Reasonable Spiderman standard (reasonable person of those special abilities)
a) There aren’t that many people with exceptional knowledge/ability, so it couldn’t be used often
b) The P probably wouldn’t even know the defendant had exceptional knowledge/ability if defendant did, so even less of a risk of this exception being overly broad
Doctors, Lawyers - Professionals
Reasonable Person Standard for professionals (doctors, lawyers, circus clowns eg.)
Professionals must act with the level of skill and learning commonly possessed by members of the profession in good standing
How is the Custom of a given industry/profession relevant to the Reasonableness? Exceptions?
Custom can inform the standard of reasonableness, but is not always dispositive. (eg. an entire industry can be acting unreasonably in a way that breaches duty of care - TJ Hooper - boats not carrying radios = customary, but careless)
Exception: Doctors generally set their own standards (see next few cards)
What is the standard of Reasonableness for medical procedures/practices? How are these standards determined in court?
Whether med. Treatment was AN acceptable custom/practice.
Because special knowledge is required, experts witnesses must be used. However, the experts must testify to acceptable medical standards IN GENERAL; you can’t examine expert to ask how SHE would have done it.
NOTE: Expert must testify as to custom as it would be in that hospital (ie. what is custom at big NYC hospital w/resources might not be reasonable in tiny rural clinic)
If a doctor knows of a better treatment than the customary one (say from personal research), is it reasonable for him to use the customarily accepted one instead?
NO. Doctor will be (tk sometimes only?) held to the higher standard because of his special knowledge
Helling case
Court uses Hand theory (B<PL) to set custom of giving low -risk patients glaucoma test, since test is cheap.
However, court-set customs create new economic pressures, can get messy
What are the two standards for informed consent?
1) The "Reasonable Physician"
2) The "Prudent Patient"
Reasonable Physician standard:
What reasonable medical practitioners in the same or similar circumstances would have told their patients undertaking the same or similar procedure. (Custom standard)
Prudent Patient standard:
Step 1) What the physician should disclose to a reasonable patient in order for the patient to make an informed decision (informed constent starndard)
Step 2) Cause (courts are split)
Subjective: If the P had been informed with all information, would SHE have withheld consent (chance of numbness v. cancer?)
Objective: Would a prudent person, knowing the risk of a particular outcome, have consented?
Carrol Towing
Birth of the Hand Formula!
B<PL -- Burden of Precaution < Probability of Loss * Gravity of Loss
Not all injury causing conduct is unreasonable. Here it would have been cheaper to keep barger looking after flour barge than risk of loss of all cargo.
Res Ipsa - Requirements (3 plus one minority requirement)
Threshold: no direct evidence of how the D behaved (most courts)
1) The event doesn’t usually happen w/o negligence
2) Def.had exclusive control of object involved
3) Minority of jurisdictions require that Π not be contributory negligent.
4) D has better access to the evidence (more of a justification than a requirement)
Can Res Ipsa be invoked against multiple Defendants?
Some courts say yes, if Π cannot identify which defendant likely caused his injury
Example: If Π was unconscious during an operation for example, most courts would allow him to invoke res ipsa against surgeon, nurse, etc.
What are the three approaches to Res Ipsa's effect on the burden of production?
1) Majority view: res ipsa creates an “inference” of negligence and is appropriate for a jury.
2) Res ipsa raises a “presumption” of negligence and switches the burden of PRODUCTION. D must present evidence that he used due care to avoid judgment as a matter of law. But the burden of proof at trial remains on P.
3) Res ipsa creates a “presumption” of negligence and it switches the burden of PROOF.
(D not only has to present evidence of its due care, but it has the burden of convincing the jury that it used due care)
What are the 4 requirements for Negligence per se?
1) Causal link between the act constituting a statutory violation and the resulting injury
2) P must belong to the class of person protected by the safety statute
3) Statute must protect against the particular harm for which the P seeks to recover
4) Risk/hazard is what statute/reg. was designed to prevent
If a P satisfies the 4 requirements of Negligence per se, what is the result? (Maj/Min views)
Majority Rule: D is negligent per se. This ONLY satisfies the Duty and Breach elements of a negligence claim; P still must prove Causation and Injury

Minority Rule: Violation of safety statute is mere EVIDENCE of negligence, which a jury may find is outweighed by other evidence of due care
Is violation of an Administrative safety regulation negligence per se?
Courts are split.
Some courts give regs deference because they are promulgated by experts.
Example: Bayne v. Todd Shipyards Co.- D violated a Department of Labor regulation and P was subsequently injured. P was not employed by D, but since the statute was meant to protect workmen, the P falls within the class of persons protected by it
When will a violation of a safety statute be excused and not lead to negligence per se?
1) Emergency (not caused by actor)
2) Safer not to obey (walking on wrong side of LI highway)
3) Physically unable to comply
4) Def neither knew nor should have known that she was violating the regulation
What are the 4 tests for Actual Causation
1) But-for test
2) Substantial Factors test
3) Lost opportunity for survival (ambulance case)
4) Future Harm
"But For" test: Who must prove what? What is required to bring it to the jury?
P must prove that MORE LIKELY THAN NOT (>50%), but for D's carelessness, P would not have been injured.
Note: In order for causation question to go to a jury, Π has to proffer a theory of events more probable than simply "possible".
Substantial Factors test:
Once a Π has introduced evidence that a Δ’s negligent act or omission increased the risk of harm to Π, & that the harm was in fact sustained, it becomes Q for the jury as to whether that increased risk was a "substantial factor" in producing that harm.
Falcon Rule (Lost opportunity for survival):
Lost opportunity for a chance of survival is sufficient evidence of causation to allow a jury to consider it.
Falcon v. Memorial Hospital - Had the Δ (doctor) followed proper medical procedures, Falcon would have had a 37.5% chance of surviving the medical accident that was the cause of her death.
Actual Cause: Future Harm
SOME COURTS allow a Π to recover if she can prove that she will probably incur a harm in the future
Petriello v. Kalman - Π proves that, as a result of Δ’s carelessness, she has an 8-16% chance of suffering future harm. Court allows her to recover, but she’ll only recover 16% of the damages that would result if she were to incur the harm (rarely, if ever followed)
Respondeat Superior:
Employers liable for the torts of their employees (employees still liable as well). Does NOT apply to independent contractors.
True Join Tortfeasors:
D1 and D2 act in concert and this concert of action causes P's injury.
Example: D1 collides into P’s car while D1 and D2 are drag racing. D2 never hits P, but both D1 and D2 are fully liable because they were acting in concert and encouraged the tortious conduct which resulted in injury
Concurrent Action:
Two tortfeasors cause an injury which either one could have caused by himself independently
Car driver (CD) and truck driver (TD) both drive carelessly, collide, and hit and kill pedestrian. Liability?
All courts agree: BOTH are jointly & severally (J&S) liable even though there is no "bur-for" cause from either one.(both were necessary)
D negligently starts a fire and lightning starts another fire. Fires combine and P’s house burned down. Who's liable?
Courts are split - Two Options:
1) B is liable to Π; or
2) B is liable unless he could prove that HIS fire wasn’t a substantial factor in the house burning down (this deals with proximate cause)
Difference between joint and several liability?
1) Several liability: Each Δ is independently liable for the whole verdict
2) Joint liability: Δs split liability
Doctrine of apportionment: If Δs are found jointly liable, one Δ may be able to force another to pay more depending on their respective contribution to the Π’s injury
P is hit by driver A, breaking his arm. Before he can get up, driver B hits him, breaking his leg. Liability?
The injury is DIVISIBLE, so A is liable for the arm only, and B is liable for the leg only.
P is hit by driver A, breaking his arm. Before he can get up, driver B hits him, breaking his leg. P then dies of shock. Liability?
Both are J&S liable because we can't tell who caused the death.
: Def 1 damages Pl’s leg to the tune of 1k/year for 20 yrs (life expectancy). One year later, Def 2 damages leg so that it must be amputated. A leg is worth 5K/yr for 19 yrs.
Who pays what?
D1 pays 1k/20 years for the injury, and D 2 pays 4k/19 years since P was deprived of an injured leg.
2 fires, set by separate people, combine and burn down house
Both are J&S liable (substantial factors test)
2 fires, one set by D, one caused by lightning, combine and burn down house. Liability?
D is only liable if his fire was a substantial factor
Kid falls off bridge, grabs live wire to stop his fall and is zapped to death. What result?
Dillion v. Twin State Gas & Electric: PREEMPTED CAUSE (doomed P) - the kid only had seconds to live anyway, so there is no damage, hence no tort. (different if there were water below and he might have lived)
Summers v. Tice
Rule and elements
Hunting accident. One of two pals shot P, but its impossible to tell which.
Alternative liability: Court puts burden on D's to prove they were not careless
3 elements to Summers Rule:
(a) Δs acted negligently; and
(b) Their acts were pretty nearly identical and one of them caused the injury;
(c) Π isn’t at fault in being unable to prove which bullet got him
Liability when an unknown one of multiple companies may have produced the product/drug that caused the injury. Approaches?
Industry-wide liability (also called enterprise liability): Applies where multiple companies act as one (eg. delegating safety procedures to an industry association) - ALL D companies are liable.
Market Share Theory: D companies are liable for damages commensurate with their market share. (eg. Sindell v. Abbott Labs - DES birth defects case)
Requirements for Market Share approach to company liability?
(a) Identical products
(b) Negligent Δs who are all negligent in the same way
(c) Δs have to be substantial part of the market
(d) Π is not at fault in not being able to come up with the Σ
(e) Δ not liable if there’s proof he didn’t do it (e.g., Π bought DES at a Duane Reed store and Δ never sold there)
(In NY, this fifth requirement doesn’t apply. Even if a Δ can prove he was innocent as regards that particular Π, Δ is still liable)
What are the 4 approaches to Proximate Cause?
Direct Cause
Risk Approach
Directness + Risk approach
Proximate Cause: Direct Cause Approach
(1) Δ should only be liable if his carelessness directly caused the injury
(2) Acc’d to this approach, Δ is liable for any unforeseeable injuries if they’re directly caused by the Δ’s carelessness
(3) In re Polemis: Δ inadvertantly created a spark which ignited petroleum starting a fire, destroying the ship, but judge ruled it was a direct cause with no intervening factors.
Proximate Cause: Foreseeability Approach:
MAJORITY VIEW: Was type/kind of injury a foreseeable result of the Δ’s conduct?
The Damage, not the causal chain must be foreseeable: i.e, Def created huge fire hazard. Burning rat ignites hazard in freak accident. Def is still liable. Damage was foreseeable, even if causal chain was weird.
(eg. Wagon Mound - burning oilspill hurt boat)
Proximate Cause - Risk Approach:
The judge decides if the risk that was created was the kind of risk that made Def’s conduct negligent.
Directness + Risk Approach:
Kinsman Transit Co. - Even if the final result wasn’t foreseeable from the ship’s failure to be properly anchored down the damage was DIRECT and of the same general TYPE as damage that was risked by the careless behavior.

(i) Court also rules that as long as the Π is a member of a class as to which there was general foreseeability of harm, liability is appropriate (but this doesn't extend forever)
What is a superseding act?
One that relieves Δ of liability, but not all intervening acts are superseding acts
Only become superseding if they are totally abnormal & bizarre - Extreme acts of nature, most criminal acts, etc.