Torts

Substantial factor test

A test to determine if the defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, even if not the sole cause.

Summers v. Tice

Holding that when two defendants are negligent and it is unclear who caused the harm, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants.

Doctrine of multiple sufficient causes

Liability is imposed when each act alone would have caused the harm (Kingston v. Chicago & NW Ry.).

Res Ipsa Loquitur in Ybarra v. Spangard

A group of defendants in a surgery case was held liable under Res Ipsa when harm occurred, shifting the burden to the defendants to explain.

But-for standard

Requires proof that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence (New York Central R.R. v. Grimstad).

Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative

Holding that the reduced chance of survival due to delayed diagnosis allowed partial recovery for loss of chance.

Concurrent causes of harm

Illustrated in Anderson v. Minneapolis R.R., where both negligent parties are liable when two fires combine to destroy property.

Intervening vs. superseding causes

Intervening causes are foreseeable and do not break the chain of causation; superseding causes are unforeseeable and do break it.

Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel

Holding that a hotel without a lifeguard or warning sign was liable for drowning under a statute intended to prevent such harm.

All or nothing rule in causation

Requires plaintiffs to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (more than 50%) that the defendant’s negligence caused the harm.

Wagon Mound (No. 1) proximate causation

Limits liability based on the foreseeability of harm, rejecting it for harm caused in unforeseeable ways.

Wagon Mound (No. 2) takeaway

A small probability of foreseeable harm can still justify liability if precautions were reasonable.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

Case demonstrating that no liability exists when harm to the plaintiff was unforeseeable.

Thin skull rule in damages

Defendants are liable for the full extent of harm, even if the plaintiff’s condition made them more susceptible.

Hughes v. Lord Advocate

Holding that liability exists when the type of harm is foreseeable, even if the manner of occurrence is unusual.

Andrews dissent in Palsgraf

Proximate cause should focus on natural, continuous sequences and be a jury question.

Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.

Significance lies in the fact that foreseeable intervening events do not absolve a party from liability.

Recoverable damages in tort law

Includes compensatory (economic and non-economic), punitive (for egregious conduct), and sometimes nominal damages.

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.

Illustrates punitive damages as Ford was penalized for knowingly selling a dangerous car.

Collateral source rule

Prevents defendants from reducing damages by showing that the plaintiff received compensation from other sources.

Contributory negligence

A complete bar to recovery when the plaintiff’s negligence contributes to their harm.

Last clear chance doctrine

Allows recovery despite contributory negligence if the defendant had the final opportunity to avoid harm.

Comparative negligence

Reduces recovery by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault but allows partial recovery.

Pure vs. modified comparative negligence

Pure allows recovery regardless of fault level; modified bars recovery if the plaintiff is equally or more at fault.

Assumption of risk

A defense where the plaintiff voluntarily accepts a known risk, potentially barring recovery.

Express assumption of risk

The plaintiff explicitly agrees to accept a risk, often through a contract or waiver.

Implied assumption of risk

Inferred from the plaintiff’s conduct, indicating voluntary acceptance of a risk.

Firefighter’s rule

Limits public safety officers' recovery for injuries inherent to their job duties.

Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement Co.

Established primary assumption of risk; the plaintiff accepted risks inherent in riding an amusement ride.

Sovereign immunity

Shields government entities from liability unless expressly waived.

Qualified immunity

Protects government officials from liability unless they violate clearly established rights.

Charitable immunity

Limits liability for charitable organizations to encourage their activities, though largely abolished in most jurisdictions.

Primary vs. secondary assumption of risk

Primary bars recovery for inherent risks; secondary applies when the plaintiff assumes risks caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Knight v. Jewett

Illustrates assumption of risk in sports; no liability in a touch football game for injuries inherent to the sport.

Comparative fault and assumption of risk

Many jurisdictions treat assumption of risk as a factor in comparative negligence rather than a complete defense.

Holding in Cohen v. Smith

A plaintiff’s expressed objection to male medical personnel created an actionable claim when ignored.

Laidlaw v. Sage and imminent danger

Acts to avoid imminent danger are involuntary and thus a defense to liability.

Katko v. Briney holding

Deadly force cannot be used to protect property unless there is also a threat to personal safety.

Emergency doctrine

Allows defendants to act in emergencies without the same standard of care, provided their actions are reasonable.

Good Samaritan rule

Provides immunity to rescuers acting in good faith, barring gross negligence or willful misconduct.