Proximate cause rules

No, manner need not be foreseen. (647 orange highlight; 648 orange highlight P 2)

The event that occurred was occurred differently than one would usually expect. Does this limit the proximate cause doctrine, generally?

No, Extent of damages need not be foreseen. (648 orange highlight P 2)

The resulting damages from a harm were way above what a reasonable person would have foreseen. Does this limit the proximate cause doctrine, generally?

The type of harm needs to be foreseeable under the foreseeable risk rule test (See Wagon Mound 653) and the substantial factor (hindsight) test (see Andrew’s dissent on Palsgraf, page 650, 692-693). Directness test does not care about type of harm?

The type of harm was not what a reasonable person would have anticipated. Does this limit the proximate cause doctrine, Generally?

The rule for the Directness test is that proximate cause exists when the injury was a result of a natural, continuous sequence from the negligent conduct. If It does not examine the foreseeable consequences of an act. An example can be found in Polemis.

Rule for directness test:

The rule for the Foreseeable Risk Rule test limits proximate causation to the same foreseeable risks that defined duty. An example can be found in The Wagon Mound case.

Rule for Foreseeable Risk Test:

The rule for the Substantial Factor (sometimes called Hindsight) test is a multi-factor test that examines the harmful event, looking back from the harm to the negligent conduct to examine proximate causation. It has its roots in Judge Andrew’s Dissent in Palsgraf. Some considerations from that opinion include whether the conduct was a substantial factor in producing injury, the foreseeablity of an injury from the conduct, and the directness.

Rule for the Substantial Factor (Hindsight) Test:

However, the proximate cause connection may be severed under the intervening and superseding cause rule. The causal connection is severed when: (1) the negligent acts of a third party intervene, (2) the third party had full control over the situation, (3) the third parties negligence could not have been anticipated by the defendant, and (4) the third parties negligence directly resulting in injury to the plaintiff.

Rule for intervening causes as superseding causes:

The rule for intentional intervening acts—whether a criminal or initially tortuous act— is that it generally dissolves proximate causation for an act, except when the conduct was foreseeable.

Rule for intentional intervening causes: