#8863 - Proximate Causation - Tort Law

Proximate Causation

1. Definitions/Comments

But even when defendant’s negligence was clearly a but-for cause of plaintiff’s harm, the defendants negligence may not be the proximate cause of that harm.

Proximate Cause is the 2^nd NECESSARY link in the chain of causation. W/O it, the causal chain is broken and the negligent defendant is not liable to the plaintiff even for the harm the defendant has actually caused.

At some point, the liability far exceeds the culpability.

2. Liability to Reasonably Foreseeable Consequences

When an issue of proximate cause arises in a borderline case, we leave it to a jury with appropriate instructions.

It would be disproportionately burdensome to hold a culpable actor potentially liable for all the injurious consequences that may flow from his act.

Tests for Proximate Cause-

Restatement 3^rd §29 (Liable for Harm within the Scope of Risk)

-An actor’s liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious.

-The defendant should be held liable only for harm that was among the potential harms (the risks) that made the actor’s conduct tortious. Foreseeability!!!

-So look at a) the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious and b) whether the harm suffered was a result of any of those risks.

-If the harms risked by the tortious conduct include the general sort of harm suffered by the plaintiff, the defendant is subject to liability for that harm.

( a delay which later caused an accident will not be proximate cause).

Marshall v. Nugent (plaintiff hit after truck almost hit him, he swerved and got stuck, walking up street to warn traffic, situation was not stabilized)

The harm suffered must be within the foreseeable “bundle of risks”.

Polemis (planks fall into ship, leaking benezine, ship catches fire).

Only need “some damage or harm” to be liable unless there was an independent intervening cause.

Wagon Mound 1 (damage to wharf from oil spill then fire)

“liability for shock is foreseeability of injury by shock”.

It is the foreseeability of the harm that actually occurs that leads to liability.

Wagon Mound 2 (other ships damaged by fire from oil spill)

Expands on Wagon 1 to add a couple more risks that could be minimal, and uses “balancing”.

Palsgraf (lady hit by scales after package dropped that had fireworks in them and explodes)

Cardozo= is about the duty, if didn’t owe a duty to plaintiff then can’t be held liable for harm plaintiff suffers.

Must determine duty before determine negligence and then liability to plaintiff.

Andrews (dissent)

Owe duty to whole world & is more about proximate cause- “but for”.

All those injured by an act of negligence may complain.

Plaintiff’s rights must be injured, and this injury must be caused by the

Negligence. Danger must be so connected w/ negligence that the latter

Can be said to be proximate cause of harm.

3. Superseding Causes

To carry the burden of proving a prima facie case, the plaintiff must generally show that the defendant’s negligence was a substantial cause of the events which produced the injury.

But, the Plaintiff need not show that the precise manner in which the accident happened, or the extent of injuries, was foreseeable.

Where acts of a 3^rd person intervene between the defendants conduct and the plaintiff’s harm, the causal connection is not automatically severed.

Liability turns upon whether the intervening act is a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation created by the defendant’s negligence.

Derdiarian v. Felix- contractor negligently put up safety barrier for road work & car (driver epileptic seizure) hit worker and he was burned. The point of good barriers was to protect workers from cars, so was not a superseding cause.

An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of liability, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is the very same risk that renders the actor negligent. (Rat catches fire and runs into room that had negligent gas leak is not a superseding cause, was within the bundle of risks that made the original act negligent).

That a defendant could not anticipate the precise manner of the accident or the exact extent of injuries, does not preclude liability as a matter of law where the general risk of injuries was foreseeable.

Factors considered in determining whether an intervening force is a Superseding Cause of Harm:

1. Fact that its intervening brings about harm different in kind from that which would otherwise have resulted from the actors negligence

2. The...