Proximate Cause

Question 1

Core Q’s for Proximate Cause

Answer 1

• is there a close enough connection between the negligence and the injury?
• is it a proximate connection, or is the harm too remote, too attenuated?

Question 2

Why do we care about proximate cause?

Answer 2

• some things are just too attenuated + too trivial for liability to make sense
• at some point, apparent consequence starts to look more like mere coincidence + actual cause can’t be said to be proximate cause
• it’s wrong on moral + policy grounds to hold tortfeasor responsible when connection between harm + tortious conduct no more than coincidence + when harm grossly disproportionate to wrongdoing

Question 3

Two Views on Proximate Cause

Answer 3

• causal understanding - directness test

- conceptual understanding - foreseeability test

Question 4

Foreseeability Test for Proximate Cause - General

Answer 4

• focuses on whether the harm was within the scope of foreseeability for the negligent act
• ex w/ def who didn’t turnoff car while pumping gas at gas station in violation of its regs -> car rolled back + hit pl, but def not liable b/c regs were designed to prevent explosions, not the rolling back of cars

Question 5

Larrimore v. American National Insurance Co. - Facts

Answer 5

• 1939
• def gave rat poison to tenant for use in exterminating rats in coffee shop -> tenant put rat poison near coffee burner -> pl hurt when rat poison exploded as pl was lighting the burner
• def had no reason to know of explosive quality of the poison, but pl argued violated a statute about laying out poison

Question 6

Larrimore - Holding

Answer 6

• deals w/ foreseeability
• def not liable even though but-for cause b/c pl’s injury was not the kind of injury the statute sought to prevent
• unlawful act needs to have proximate cause connection to injury complained of

Question 7

Palsgraf v. Long Island RR

Answer 7

• man jumps onto train while it’s moving + RR employees help him on -> package dropped in the process -> explodes + causes injury to pl
• defs NOT held liable - “risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed” (basically, the harm that occurred was really not foreseeable of their negligence in aiding the man boarding a moving train)

Question 8

Foreseeability - Analysis Steps

Answer 8

• at time of negligent act, is the actual injury within the scope of the risk that would be perceived?
• considers what sort of things a reasonable person would perceive as the risks of the negligent act (don’t have to predict exact sequence of events, but just need to be able to reasonably foresee if pl is within class which could be injured)

Question 9

Sinram v. Penn RR - Articulation of Foreseeability Test

Answer 9

• “whether the damage could be foreseen by the actor when he acted; not indeed the precise train of events, but similar damage to the same class of persons”

Question 10

Wagon Mound Case - Facts and Holding

Answer 10

• tanker spills oil -> fire occurs

- fire was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the oil spill, therefore def not liable

Question 11

Wagon Mound Case - Rule

Answer 11

-a defendant is only liable for the consequences flowing from his negligent act that are foreseeable to a reasonable person at the time of the negligent act

Question 12

Wagon Mound Case - Rationale

Answer 12

• alternative - def liable for all “direct” consequences of his negligent acts, regardless of their foreseeability -> would be unfair b/c liability potentially limitless (says would require people to prevent acts they can’t possibly expect)
• vs holding def liable only for consequences reasonably foreseeable at the time of negligent act gives actual chance to prevent consequences

Question 13

Wagon Mound II

Answer 13

• court ultimately says reasonably careful person would’ve thought about even this small P w/ huge L (notes say risk package - think of both large chance of small losses as well as small chance of large losses)

Question 14

Directness Test

Answer 14

• causal understanding
• “direct and immediate cause, or in the natural sequence of events without intervention of another independent case…that which, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injuries + w/o which the result would not have occurred”
• emphasizes causal chain

Question 15

Palsgraf Dissent

Answer 15

• articulates the directness test for proximate cause

Considerations:

• was there a natural and continuous sequence between cause + effect?
• was there a direct connection, w/o too many intervening causes?
• Or is the result too remote in time and space from the cause?

Question 16

Dellwo v. Pearson

Answer 16

• negligence tested by foresight
• proximate cause tested by hindsight -> for prox cause, indiv is liable for “all natural and probable consequences” regardless of whether foreseeable
• if you do something that, in exercise of ordinary care, you should’ve anticipated was liable to result in injury to someone else, you ARE liable for all injuries proximately resulting from it, even if you couldn’t have anticipated the injury that did happen

Question 17

Hypersensitive Plaintiff

Answer 17

• suffers exceptionally great harm from injury that would inflict only “modest” harm on normal people
• such cases tend to highlight difference between foreseeability + directness tests - extent of pl’s injury usually unforeseeable but directly caused by def

Question 18

Summary of Foreseeability vs. Causation Tests

Answer 18

• foreseeability: judgment must be made whether specific injury fits into category of foreseeable harms
• causation: judgment must be made whether there was a natural sequence of events to constitute proximate cause

Question 19

Watson v. Rheindernecht

Answer 19

• take your victim as you find them
• tortfeasor is liable for unforeseen worsening of victim’s pre-existing health conditions
• basically, def committed battery upon pl + pl had existing med conditions that made impact worse -> doesn’t matter that pl had pre-existing conditions (making more sensitive pl), def still liable for injury caused

Question 20

Smith v. Leech Brain & Co.

Answer 20

• 1962
• Smith got burn due to employer’s negligence -> minor lip wound developed into cancer + metastasized
• Smith had pre-malignant condition at time of burn (strong likelihood of developing cancer at some point)
• court held for pl - what needs to be foreseeable is the type of injury suffered, not the specific damage it did to the particular victim