click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Torts 1L Mod 11-12
Torts 1L Mod 11-12 Rules statements and elements
Question | Answer |
---|---|
Rule of Proximate Cause | Requires that the plaintiff's injury be a foreseeable consequence that the defendant should reasonably have anticipated. |
Proximate Cause addresses | The fundamental tort issue of when it is appropriate to shift a plaintiff's loss to a culpable party who inflicted the loss. |
Factors that influence the policy issues which confront courts in attempting to determine whether proximate cause is established. | Foreseeability of injury Intervening actors Acts of God General social and economic policy goals |
Thin Skull rule | Takes the plaintiff as he finds her. |
Three main types of proximate cause | Unforeseeable Type of Harm Unforeseeable Extent of Harm (easiest) Unforeseeable Manner of Harm (most complex) |
Unforeseeable Type of Harm | Defendant claims yes he was unreasonable and yes his unreasonable conduct was a cause in fact of the plaintiff's injuries, but the type of harm you suffered was unforeseeable. Therefore he is not the proximate cause. |
Unforeseeable Extent of Harm (easiest) | i. Defendant says yes he was unreasonable, and he caused the plaintiff harm, but the extent of the injury plaintiff suffered is unforeseeable , and he shouldn't have to pay for all of it. |
Unforeseeable Manner of Harm (most complex) | D. says he breached a duty to P. that was the cause in fact of P.'s harm & the type of harm P. suffered is foreseeable from neg. but the way the injury happened. The manner the harm came was so unforeseeable that D. should escape liability from neg. |
An intervening force | is a new force which joins with the defendant's conduct to cause the plaintiff's injury. It is considered intervening because it has occurred sequentially in time after the defendant's conduct. |
Conduct that is more likely to be superseding. | Reckless or intentional conduct |
A proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm | Is an issue of fact for the jury. |
Causation | the attenuated casual link between the person's negligence and the harm ultimately done by the defendant. |
Restatement's rule for proximate cause | An actor's liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious. |
Foreseeability | If a reasonable person would foresee no harm to anyone as a result of his actions we do not need to reach the proximate cause issue. |
Foreseeable Harm Test requires | (1) a reasonably foreseeable result or type of harm, and (2) no superseding intervening force. The extent and the precise manner in which the harm occurs need not be foreseeable. |
“Egg-shell” Plaintiff Personal Injury Rule | The defendant is liable even if the victim suffers physical injury far more severe (e.g., heart attack) than the ordinary person would be anticipated to have suffered from the accident. |
The Direct Causation Test | Finds proximate cause satisfied whenever the defendant's negligence caused the injury without any intervening force. |
Restatement Test | Utilizes the substantial factor factor requirement to encompass both actual cause in fact and causation in the popular sense, in which there always lurks the idea of responsibility. |
Legal Cause aka Proximate Cause | An actor's negligent conduct to be a legal cause if (a) his conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, and (b) there is no rule of law relieving the actor from liability because of the manner in which his negligence has resulted in harm. |
Rough Sense of Justice Test | Proximate cause is a question of public policy, fairness and justice, which cannot be reduced to any mechanical formula. |