Torts Class Notes
Review
Near the end of proximate
cause! Last time, we talked about
intervening forces and what the Restatement and most courts will call
superceding forces. A negligent party
should be expected to foresee intervening forces. Intervening forces are foreseeable by
a negligent person. Superceding forces
are not foreseeable by a negligent person. This is just a matter of labels (like “penalty”
versus “liquidated damages”).
If you could have foreseen an
intervening force, you’ll be liable for it, even if the manner in which it
comes about in an unexpected way.
Sometimes, we’ll cut off liability
because the intervening force is so unforeseeable that we actually call it a superceding
force.
Use the “rules of the road”
like the thin-skull rule and the rescue rule.
Sometimes it’s hard to say with certainty that a certain harm is
foreseeable.
Restatement § 442
For a discussion of
intervening versus superceding cause, look at Restatement § 442:
Considerations
Important In Determining Whether An Intervening Force Is A Superseding Cause
The
following considerations are of importance in determining whether an
intervening force is a superseding cause of harm to another:
(a)
the fact that its intervention brings about harm different in kind from that
which would otherwise have resulted from the actor's negligence;
(b)
the fact that its operation or the consequences thereof appear after the event
to be extraordinary rather than normal in view of the circumstances existing at
the time of its operation;
(c)
the fact that the intervening force is operating independently of any situation
created by the actor's negligence, or, on the other hand, is or is not a normal
result of such a situation;
(d)
the fact that the operation of the intervening force is due to a third person's
act or to his failure to act;
(e)
the fact that the intervening force is due to an act of a third person which is
wrongful toward the other and as such subjects the third person to liability to
him;
(f)
the degree of culpability of a wrongful act of a third person which sets the
intervening force in motion.
Fuller v. Preis
Lewis was in a car accident
after which he got seizures. He couldn’t
stand the seizures, and after seven months he committed suicide.
It is argued that traumatic
organic brain damage created the irresistible impulse for Lewis to commit suicide. Basically, the plaintiff argues that Lewis
went insane because of the car accident.
This case is similar to cases
where we’ve seen problems with proximate cause because of how much time passed
between the cause and the supposed effect.
Generally, however, suicide
is not an intervening cause, but rather a superceding cause. The standard for establishing third party liability
for suicide is tough, but it’s not tough in
Rescuers
“Danger invites rescue.” –
Cardozo
It’s foreseeable that
rescuers will come along when you create a danger.
McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.
McCoy stopped to help
somebody who crashed in a Suzuki. He got
hit by another car. He sues the
manufacturer of the car that crashed.
The allegation is that a defect in the Suzuki Samurai caused it to crash
which caused him to stop and rescue the driver which caused him to get hit by a
car on the highway.
What are some of the relevant
facts? It was night, and a lot of time
passed between the crash and his injury.
What is the products liability
argument? It’s foreseeable that the
defect would cause a crash which would attract a rescuer.
Rescuers are well-treated by
courts because public policy encourages them.
However, rescuers must still prove proximate cause.
You can rescue property
as well as people.
A rescuer can take some risk
in conducting a rescue.
If rescuing is part of your
job, the view is that you’re already compensated for the risk you take. Therefore, you cannot additionally recover
from the defendant unless the situation is unusual. This is the “firefighters’ rule”.