Busy. Please wait.
Log in with Clever

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
Sign up using Clever

Username is available taken
show password

Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
Your email address is only used to allow you to reset your password. See our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.

Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
Didn't know it?
click below
Knew it?
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Torts 1L Mod 11-12

Torts 1L Mod 11-12 Rules statements and elements

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.
Created by: Rochelle28nm
Popular Law sets




Use these flashcards to help memorize information. Look at the large card and try to recall what is on the other side. Then click the card to flip it. If you knew the answer, click the green Know box. Otherwise, click the red Don't know box.

When you've placed seven or more cards in the Don't know box, click "retry" to try those cards again.

If you've accidentally put the card in the wrong box, just click on the card to take it out of the box.

You can also use your keyboard to move the cards as follows:

If you are logged in to your account, this website will remember which cards you know and don't know so that they are in the same box the next time you log in.

When you need a break, try one of the other activities listed below the flashcards like Matching, Snowman, or Hungry Bug. Although it may feel like you're playing a game, your brain is still making more connections with the information to help you out.

To see how well you know the information, try the Quiz or Test activity.

Pass complete!
"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
restart all cards