Negligence - Proximate Cause

Proximate Cause

In addition to proving actual causation, plaintiff must prove that defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of the harm

• Whether the harm is within the scope of liability

Scope of Liability

Risk Rule - defendant is liable only for harms that result from the risk that made the defendant’s conduct tortious.

if the harm is not one of the forseeable risks that made the conduct negligent, there is no proximate cause

Which plaintiffs can recover? (majority/cardozo rule)

defendant owes a duty of care only to plaintiffs who are within the class of persons forseeably at risk from their conduct

Plaintiff outside the zone of forseeable danger cannot recover, even if the defendant acted negligently

Which plaintiffs can recover? (minority/andrews rule)

ANY plaintiff may recover if the harm was proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct or was within the scope of liability.

Duty is owed to the world at large; recovery turns on proximate cause, not forseeability of the plaintiff as such

• (i) Natural and continuous sequence between act and harm?

• (ii) Substantial factor?

• (iii) Direct connection? Was the connection direct, without too many intervening causes?

• (iv) Likely result? Was the harm a likely result of the conduct?

• (v) Forseeable? Could the defendant have foreseen this type of harm?

• (vi) Too remote? Is the harm too remote in time or space?

No Summer Doesnt Like Flat Trulys

Direct Cause (Majority)

plaintiff can recover if defendant’s tortious conduct was a direct cause of the harm

• forseeability of the type of harm not required

Even if dropping a plank foreseeably risks denting a ship but unforeseeably ignites vapors and destroys it, many courts still allow recovery because the harm directly flowed from the act.

(Polemis= Plank dropped into a ship's hold caused an unforeseeable spark → fire → liable.)

Forseeable Risk (Minority)

Plaintiff can’t recover unless the specific type of risk was forseeable

If the type of harm is unforseeable - no proximate cause, even if the conduct was negligent (Wagon Mound=Leaking oil → unforeseeable ignition on water → not liable.)

Extent of Damages (Eggshell Skull Rule)

Even if the type of harm must be forseeable in some jurisdictions, the extent of the harm never needs to be forseeable

Under the eggshell plaintiff rule, the defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them.

Defendant is liable for full extent of injuries, even if:

P had pre-existing condition

P was unusually vulnerable/fragile

degree of harm was far greater than expected

Intervening cause

factual cause that occurs after the defendant’s tortious act and contributes to P’s harm

It does not automatically cut off liability - it is simply a later event in the causal chain

(EX: D hits P w his car; ambulance that P gets in crashes due to another driver’s negligence = original D still liable)

Superseding Cause

an intervening cause that breaks the chain of proximate cause, relieving the original D of liability

makes the harm no longer within D’s scope of liability

Forseeability determines superseding

Forseeable intervening causes → NOT superseding → original D remains liable

Unforseeable intervening causes → superseding → original D not liable

Forseeable Intervening Cause Examples (NOT superseding)

• medical malpractice

• Negligent rescuers

• Subsequent accidents or diseases from the injury

• Normal forces of nature

• Efforts to protect people or property

Unforseeable SUPERSEDING causes:

• Extraordinary “Acts of God”

• Criminal acts or intentional torts of third parties

Negligent Intervening Causes

Negligent intervening acts are usually forseeable and therefore not superseding

Original D remains liable

• D injures P in a car crash → P goes to the hospital → doctor commits malpractice → leg amputated.

• Original driver remains liable for all resulting harm, including amputation.

Criminal Intervening Causes

Criminal/intentional acts by third parties are usually unforseeable and therefore superseding, cutting off liability

Exception: If D has a duty to protect the P from criminal acts, then the criminal act is not superseding

• EX of that: Student assaulted on a school field trip due to negligent supervision → school remains liable despite criminal assault

Effect of Non-Superseding Intervening Causes

If the intervening cause is not superseding, then:

• original D remains liable, AND

• intervening tortfeasor is also liable

= Joint and Several Liability often applies