Proximate Causation

Question 1

Proximate Causation

Answer 1

is a limit/stop-gap on causation for public policy reasons. Some harms are too remote and bizarre from the general type of harm anticipated from the defendant’s negligence/conduct.

If harm is foreseeable –> PC is established

-collapsing brick wall case

Question 2

Direct Cause Test

Answer 2

Direct link between defendant negligence and plaintiff injury without any interference/intervening act

-falling plank (yes PC); banging pots (no PC)

Question 3

Foreseeability/Harm-within-risk Test

Answer 3

“Harm within risk”→ what harms lies within risk

The general type of harm is w/in the scope/orbit of danger; reasonably foreseeable consequence/harm of negligence/conduct → then PC is met

Analysis framework
1.) Place a reasonable person in the seat and ask what they would anticipate as a possible harm? List possible harms
2. ) Does a possible harm match with a harm that actually happened?
→Yes, then foreseeable and within scope of danger

-brick wall (yes PC); vomit slip (no PC)

Question 4

Substantial Factor Test

Answer 4

1 or more: determine if other substantial factor in bringing about harm to another:

1.) Number of events in the chain:
-usually the higher, less likely PC is met
2.) Whether the chain of events tended to be harmful or if they were harmless until a third party acted on them
-If the events were harmless, but turned to be harmful due to a third party’s independent actions, then PC is less likely to be met
3. ) lapse of time: If too much time has passed between the conduct and the injury, PC less likely to be found

-Falling ellevator (no PC)

Question 5

Superseding Cause Test

Answer 5

Is there an intervening act that is unforeseeable to break the causation link?

-Foreseeable Intervening act doesn’t break chain –> liable, PC is established

-Unforeseeable intervening act is superseding and thus breaks causation chain –> no PC, not liable

-Case: political caricatures (yes PC); alarm burglary (yes PC)