Topic 8: Causation (Proximate) & Liability

D negligently leaves his large, aggressive dog unleashed at a crowded park. The dog lunges at P. Startled, P steps back quickly and bumps into Q. Q falls into a cyclist, who swerves and knocks over a hot-dog cart. The cart rolls downhill and hits P 10 seconds later. Q sues D.
Direct causation?

Yes, no intervening events

D negligently leaves a large hole uncovered on a public sidewalk.
P is walking toward it but is still 20 feet away.
Before P gets near the hole, a stranger (X), angry at P over an unrelated argument, intentionally shoves P.
P falls into the hole and is injured.
Direct causation?

No, the guy who shoved him broke the causation chain

What is a superseding act?

Unforeseeable or extraordinary events that can cut off the defendant’s liability

“Do NOT treat medical malpractice as a superseding cause.”
“Do NOT treat rescuer negligence as a superseding cause.”
“Do NOT treat re-injury to a weakened body part as a superseding cause.”
What doctrine is this and where does it fit?

Subsequent Medical Injury Doctrine: Causation

D negligently starts a fire in his own house. A neighbor rushes to save D. Is D liable for neighbor’s injuries?

Yes. The Rescue Doctrine - danger invites rescue.

What is Joint & Several Liability?

Indivisible injury caused by joint actions

Racer 1 is racing with Racer 2. Racer 1 loses control, swerves and hits P. Racer 1 is obviously liable. Racer 2 said, “I was racing but I didn’t hit P.” Joint and several liability? Why?

Yes. We want to maximize P’s chances of recovery.

What are these examples of?
1. Multiple Ds working in concert.
2. Group of Ds try to fight P but only one of them hits P.
3. Married couple owns land. Husband waxed the floors and guest falls.

Joint and Several Liability

What is Several Liability?

Each D is liable for their own portion of P’s damages (e.g. D1 is found to be 60% at fault. D2 is 40% at fault. P’s total damages are $100,000, D1 is liable for $40K, D2 is liable for $60K).

What makes us question whether the injury is “unanticipated”?

The extent of the injury (Bartelone)
 The type of harm suffered by the P (Polemis)
 The person who suffered the harm (Pslasgraf)
 The manner in which the injury occurred (various cases)

Intervening causes

(1) Independent of negligent act;
(2) human act or episodic natural event;
(3) occurs or exists at the time of, or after, the original negligent act and contributes to, and are necessary for, the injury.

Chef in a commercial kitchen put rat poison above the stove, right
next to the salt and pepper. The poison was in an unlabeled container.
Cook was frying an entree, and the rat poison container overheated,
burst, and injured his eyes.
Liability for Chef?

No. The type of injury at risk from placing the poison over the stove
was that it might be put onto patron’s food, not that it would explode
from the heat.

Four municipal workers who were working 20 feet below street level on some electrical equipment took a coffee/smoke break.
All of them left the scene during the break, and left open the manhole cover which gave them access to the equipment below the street.
2 boys, 8 and 7 years old, came to investigate.
They climbed into the manhole and down the access ladder, with their lantern. After 5 minutes or so, they climbed back out w/o incident.
While they were celebrating their adventure, they knocked over their lantern, which fell into the opening, shattered, and started a fire.
The fire created a vacuum, which sucked one of the boys into the hole, where he was injured when he hit the cement floor 20 feet below.
Verdict for the boy (actually the boy’s representative) upheld against a proximate cause challenge.
Proximate Cause?

Yes, that’s exactly the type of injury we’d expect from leaving the hole open