Causation (pt2) proximate cause

Question 1

Foreseeability standard (generally)

Answer 1

The scope of a defendant’s duty is defined by the scope of the reasonably foreseeable harm resulting from the defendant’s actions. If someone is outside of the range of the reasonably foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s actions, the defendant generally does not owe that person a duty, and the person therefore may not bring a negligence action against the defendant (Palsgraf case).

Question 2

Foreseeability standard (as applied to proximate cause) and when does it not apply?

Answer 2

• Proximate cause requires a natural, direct, and continuous sequence between the defendant’s negligent act and the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, it must be shown that the plaintiff’s injuries were within the scope of danger created by the defendant’s negligent conduct or were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s negligence. To apply the foreseeability test, courts consider whether the defendant should have reasonably foreseen the potential risks associated with their conduct and taken reasonable precautions to prevent harm (Tieder case).
• The standard is not applicable when an outcome might be “imaginary” or “possible” because this is not the same as saying that it would be reasonably foreseeable (slipping in vomit case).

Question 3

Direct cause test

Answer 3

negligent actor can be held liable for all damages his negligent act caused, even if not reasonably foreseeable. The damage does not have to be reasonably foreseeable; it simply must be caused by negligence (falling blank that caused a spark in a ship case).

Question 4

Intervening Act

Answer 4

An act occurring after a defendant’s negligent act may be sufficient to break the causal connection between the defendant’s negligent conduct and the plaintiff’s subsequent injuries (banging two hot pots after a heating system failed case).

Question 5

Substantial factor tests

Answer 5

Negligent conduct is the proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injury if the conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. Evidence presented at trial may suggest more than one proximate cause of a plaintiff’s injury. However, the mere fact that some other cause contributes to a plaintiff’s injury will not relieve any defendant whose negligent conduct was one of the substantial causes of a plaintiff’s harm.(asbestos death: was it him smoking or the asbestos he inhaled on the job?)

Question 6

how is Sub factor proven?

Answer 6

To prove sub factor test:
(a) the number of other factors which contribute in producing the harm and the extent of the effect which they have in producing it;
(b) whether the actor’s conduct has created a force or series of forces that are in continuous and active operation up to the time of the harm or has created a situation harmless unless acted upon by other forces for which the actor is not responsible;
(c) lapse of time.

Question 7

Superseding vs intervening cause

Answer 7

An intervening act becomes a superseding cause that removes a defendant’s liability if and only if the action should have been foreseeable to the defendant