Torts Flashcards
(28 cards)
What is the general rule of proximate cause for a defendant’s liability?
A defendant is liable for all harmful results that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by their acts.
In indirect cause cases, when can an independent intervening force be considered foreseeable
When the defendant’s negligence increased the risk that such intervening forces would cause harm to the plaintiff.
Does a criminal act by a third party always break the chain of causation in a negligence case?
No. A criminal act by a third party will not cut off liability if the defendant’s negligence created a foreseeable risk that a third person would commit that crime.
Is a manufacturer liable for a defective product if the plaintiff misuses it?
Yes, but only if the misuse is foreseeable. Foreseeability here is an issue for the trier of fact
What is the doctrine of transferred intent for assault and battery?
the intent to assault is sufficient to establish a battery if a touching results
What is an assault in torts?
An assault is committed when the victim is put in reasonable apprehension of an offensive touching
Who is considered a licensee under traditional landowner liability rules?
A person who enters land with the landowner’s permission (express or implied) for their own purpose, not for the landowner’s benefit—like a social guest.
Does a social guest performing minor services for the host become an invitee?
No. Minor services do not convert a licensee (social guest) into an invitee.
What is an anticipated trespasser?
A trespasser whom the landowner knows regularly enters the land at a particular spot.
Is a health inspector checking the landowner’s premises a licensee or invitee?
An invitee, because they are there for a purpose connected with the landowner’s business.
Is a visitor to a free public museum considered a licensee or invitee?
An invitee, because the land is held open to the public for that purpose.
What is proximate cause in a negligence case?
It’s a legal limit on liability that requires the defendant’s conduct to be closely enough connected to the harm — meaning the harm must be foreseeable, not just a “but-for” cause.
Is a defendant liable for all harm that results from their negligent conduct?
No. The defendant is only liable for foreseeable harmful results that are normal incidents of the risk created.
What is the difference between cause in fact and proximate cause?
Cause in fact = Actual, factual cause (“but for” the act, the harm wouldn’t have occurred). Proximate cause = Legal cause; limits liability to foreseeable outcomes.
Is proximate cause only an issue when there’s an intervening force?
No. Even in direct cause cases, proximate cause can still limit liability if the harm is too unusual or unforeseeable.
If a harm was foreseeable, does it matter if the timing or manner of the harm was unusual?
No. If the general type of harm was foreseeable, the weird timing or strange way it happened does not protect the defendant from liability.
What legal principle explains why rescuers are often foreseeable plaintiffs?
“Danger invites rescue” — Rescues are a normal response to danger, so harm caused by a rescuer’s negligence is usually foreseeable and within the defendant’s liability.
Is it possible for someone to actually cause an injury but not be proximately liable?
Yes. A person can be the actual cause but not the proximate cause if the injury was too unusual or unforeseeable to justify liability.
What is an indirect cause case?
It’s when some other intervening force comes into play after the defendant’s negligent act and combines with it to cause the injury.
What matters more for proximate cause: how or when the harm occurred, or what kind of harm occurred?
What matters is what kind of harm occurred — if that harm was foreseeable, it doesn’t matter how weirdly or when it happened.
How can I remember how courts handle weird accidents with foreseeable harm?
Think: “Foresee the Fire, Not the Flame.”: If you can foresee the general danger (like fire), You don’t need to foresee the exact spark (flame) that causes it.
Are criminal acts of third parties considered foreseeable intervening forces in negligence cases?
Sometimes. They are not natural responses to the defendant’s conduct, but they can be foreseeable under certain conditions.
When is a criminal act by a third party considered foreseeable for proximate cause purposes?
When the defendant’s negligence increased the risk that such a crime would happen, for example: negligently deactivating alarm systems, etc
What’s the difference between a natural response and an independent action as an intervening force?
A natural response (like rescue) is a predictable reaction to danger. An independent action (like a crime) isn’t automatic, and requires a separate foreseeability analysis.
