Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


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.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read 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.

Remove ads
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
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

QuestionAnswer
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