Page 24 Flashcards Preview

Torts FYLSE > Page 24 > Flashcards

Flashcards in Page 24 Deck (25):

What is an independent intervening force?

A force that doesn't come from a response or reaction to the defendant's breach of duty which is reasonably foreseeable and doesn't supersede the negligence unless it is unforeseeable or intentionally tortious/criminal


If you get hit by someone in a car accident and get surgery and a bacteria in the air causes infection and you die, who is liable?

The person that hit you


What is the superseding intervening force?

New force that is highly improbable and extraordinary that joins the defendant's negligence to injure the plaintiff


Examples of superseding intervening forces?

Acts of nature that weren't anticipated, extreme malpractice, suicide that wasn't defendant's fault and defendant didn't have special relationship that included a knowledge of the risk of suicide


If a Foreseeable result is caused by an unforeseeable intervening force, where is the liability?

Defendant is still liable as long as the result was foreseeable


Special considerations for foreseeability?

Acts of God, abnormal rescue attempts, criminal conduct by third parties, negligent conduct by third parties, subsequent or second accident, risk rule


Examples of acts of God?

Unprecedented and extraordinary floods, storms, weather conditions


If a person's rescue attempt is foolhardy is it considered foreseeable and relieves the defendant of liability?

Yes, even if it leads to foreseeable result


If a third-party doesn't prevent the harm by the defendant, does that relieve defendant of liability?

No, even if that third-party had a duty to act


If a third-party's failure to act is so culpable and extraordinary that he neutralized the risk created from the defendant's original negligence, is his failure a superseding cause?



If you leave dynamite caps for a child picks them up and show them to dad, and the guy doesn't take them away, where does liability lie?

With the dad, because his negligence was extraordinary and neutralize the risk so you were't liable


Criminal and intentional conduct by third parties usually breaks the chain of causation unless what?

It is within the scope of risk normally created by the defendant's conduct


If a landlord doesn't keep lights maintained in a high crime area and someone gets attacked, who is responsible?

The landlord because the risk was within the scope of risk normally created by the defendant's conduct


If You leave a skateboard on the sidewalk and it gets used to break a car window to steal a radio, are you liable?

No because the criminal conduct was an intervening event that broke the chain of causation since the risk was a someone would trip on it and fall, not steal something with it


Does negligent conduct by third parties break the chain of causation?

usually unless it is within the scope of the risk created by the conduct


If you block the sidewalk and force someone to step onto the street, are you liable if that person gets hit by a negligent driver?

Yes, because the scope of the risk was someone getting hurt on the street


If you block the sidewalk and someone has to step on the street and gets shot by a stray bullet from a nearby bank robbery, are you liable ?

No, because that wasn't within the scope of the risk and counts as an intervening cause that relieves liability


Is the defendant liable if his negligence leaves the P in a position of peril?



If You negligently run over a pedestrian who is then hit by a bus, are you the proximate cause of all of his injuries?

Yes, because your negligence left him in a position of peril


What is the risk rule?

If the harm is within the scope of the risk from defendant's conduct, proximate cause is present


If you leave an open pit in the sidewalk and the plaintiff was injured when someone pushed him in the pit, are you liable?

Yes, because the harm was within the scope even though the manner was unexpected


What does superseding mean?

force is so highly improbable and extraordinary that there's no connection to the harm threatened and is an exception to the foreseeability test


What is the restatement's test for figuring out if an intervening force is superseding?

- if the intervention causes harm different than what usually happen
- consequences are extraordinary
- force is independent of the situation created by defendant
- force is due to third party's act/failure to act
- third person's act as wrongful toward another, so he is liable


What is the eggshell personal injury rule?

The type of injury doesn't have to be foreseeable because you take the plaintiff as you find him and defendant is liable for unforeseeable or uncommon reactions to the defendant's negligent or intentional act


Abnormal or highly unusual reactions to defendant's breach are usually what?

Unforeseeable and supersede defendants liability