Negligence

Causation
----a close causal connection
between________ and ________
(D’s conduct / P’s injury)
Causation has two categories:
________ and ________.
(cause in fact/ proximate cause)
(1)


The causation in fact----actual cause
If an injury would not have occurred
without the defendant’s act, then there
is causation in fact, which can usually
be determined by the use of the but for
test
A but for test:(to determine the
existence of actual cause)
The defendant’s conduct is the actual
cause of the plaintiff’s injury if that
injury would not have occurred but for
the defendant’s breach of duty.
(2)proximate cause
 The courts have recognized that a
negligent person should not necessarily
be responsible for every injury actually
caused by her negligence.
 This idea of placing some legal limit on a
negligent defendant’s liability for the
consequences of her actions is called
proximate cause. Courts often say that a
negligent defendant is liable only for the
proximate results of her conduct.
 Since the Palsgraf case, the courts have
used foreseeability as the test for
proximate cause.
(3) actual cause/ proximate cause
 Actual
cause----causation in fact
proximate cause----legal cause,
which is a question not of fact, but
of law and social policy.
 Although a defendant’s conduct may
have been the actual cause of a
particular plaintiff’s injury, she is
liable only if her conduct was also
the proximate (legal) cause of that
injury.
(4) Superseding causes
 In some cases an intervening force
occurring after a defendant’s negligence
may play a significant role in bringing
about a particular plaintiff’s injury. A
superseding intervening force may break
the connection between a wrongful act
and injury to another.
 When should an intervening force relieve
a negligent defendant from liability?
A. A high wind may spring up and this
causes a fire set by Davis to spread and
damage Parker’s property. Is Davis liable
for the damage to Parker’s property?
B. Dalton negligently starts a fire that
causes injury to several persons. The
driver of an ambulance summoned to the
scene to aid the injured has been
drinking on duty and , as a result, loses
control of his ambulance and runs up
onto a sidewalk, injuring several
pedestrians. Is Dalton responsible for the
pedestrians’ injuries?
ANALYSIS:
A. If the intervening force is a foreseeable
one, it will not relieve the defendant
from liability.
Yes. Davis is liable for the damage to
Parker’s property.
B. If the intervening force that
contributes to the plaintiff’s injury is
unforeseeable , most courts hold
that it is a superseding or
intervening cause that relieves the
defendant from any liability for
negligence.
No. Dalton is not responsible for the
pedestrians’ injuries.
 Actual
cause
/ proximate / superseding
Negligent
conduct
actual cause
Negligent
conduct
Proximate cause
Foreseeablility
Negligent Intervening force
conduct Superseding cause
(foreseeablility)
Injuries
(A+B+C)
Injuries
(A+B)
Injuries
6. Defenses to negligence:
(1) Stevens voluntarily goes for a
ride in Markley’s car , even though
Markley has told him that her
brakes are not working properly.
Could Stevens ask for damages if
there is an accident?
 assumption of risk: Stevens has
voluntarily assumed the risk of
injury as a result of the car’s
defective brakes.
(2) If Durban steps into the path of
Preston’s speeding car without first
checking to see whether any cars
are coming, could Preston ask for
any recovery against Durban?
• The doctrine of contributory
negligence provides that plaintiffs
who fail to exercise reasonable care
for their own safety are totally
barred from any recovery if their
contributory negligence is a
substantial factor in producing their
injury.
(3) Durban pulls into the path of
preston’s speeding car without
looking, causing an accident. When
Preston files suit to recover for the
damage, Durban argues that the
fact that Preston was speeding
amounts to contributory negligence.
If Preston can convince the court
that the accident could have been
avoided if Durban had looked before
puling onto the highway, she has a
good chance of overcoming
Durban’s contributory negligence
A
contributorily negligence plaintiff
may be able to overcome an valid
contributory negligence defense by
arguing that the defendant had the
last clear chance to avoid harm. The
doctrine of last clear chance focused
on who is last at fault in time.
(4)Dunne negligently injuries Porter and
Porter suffers $10,000 in damages. A
jury, however, determines that Porter
was 20 percent at fault. Porter could
recover only $8,000 from Dunne.
But what if Porter is determined to be
60% at fault?
 Under a comparative negligence system,
courts seek to determine the relative
fault of the parties to a negligence action
and award damages in proportion to the
degree of fault determined.
But what if Porter is determined to be
60% at fault?
The results vary depending on whether
the state has adopted a pure or a
mixed comparative fault system.
(1) Under a pure comparative fault system,
plaintiff are allowed to recover a portion
of their damages even if they are more
at fault than the defendant.
(2) Under a mixed system, plaintiff who are
as much at fault as, or more at fault
than, the defendant are denied any
recovery.
