Torts Outline

Torts Outline: Spring 2009
Dean Pierce and Dean Wilborn
 
Two Overlying Questions to think about when asked “Why”:
1.       (1) Fairness and Justice
a.       Is it fair to impose liability under these circumstances?
2.       (2) Law and Economics
a.       What kinds of incentives do we want to set up for people to follow to avoid risks?
CHAPTER 6: Proximate or Legal Cause
Proximate (Legal) Cause: a cause that is legally sufficient to result in liability; a cause that directly produces an event and without which the event would not have occurred.
There is no set rule for proximate cause; you can look at the Restatements 431 and 435, but just remember that these are a restatement of the common law, and the common law is very fuzzy. Mostly you just have to wrestle with all the different cases and figure out what best fits. It’s not a specific bright line rule.
Normally Proximate Cause Questions get sent to the jury.
        I.            Overview:
a.       Proximate Cause is basically a legal doctrine used by the courts to cut off liability
                                                               i.      Proximate Cause is a limiting concept
                                                             ii.      It is different in each case; proximate cause is applied case by case
b.       MUST have Cause in Fact (“But For Test”) in order to lead to Proximate Cause
                                                               i.      After establishing “cause in fact,” you need to do a “foreseeability” analysis
                                                             ii.      It is impossible to have Proximate Cause without Cause in Fact; must have the one before moving on to Proximate Cause
c.       Graph it out: Rules and context
                                                               i.      We have already established that defendant caused the harm (cause in fact/ “But for Test”), now we need to evaluate some questions to decide if there was proximate cause as well
1.       Questions to ask:
a.       (1) What was the scope of the risk,
b.       (2) Where the consequences too unforeseeable/remote,
c.       (3) Was there a duty or breach of duty,
d.       (4) Was there an intervening act, etc…
                                                                                                                                       i.      Proximate cause evaluates these questions
      II.            Scope of the Risk
a.       Was the harm suffered by the plaintiff within the scope of the risk of the negligent act of the defendant?
                                                               i.      Questions to ask:
1.       Why is the plaintiff’s act negligent?
2.       What are the reasonably foreseeable risks of the negligent act?
3.       Is the type of harm suffered one of the reasons why the act is negligent?
4.       Is the person harmed a foreseeable plaintiff?
b.       Scope of the risk: § 29 third
                                                               i.      Look at the Defendant’s negligent conduct—what are the possible risks that make this conduct negligent?
                                                             ii.      Look at the Plaintiff’s harm—is the plaintiff’s harm one of the risks that made the defendant’s act negligent?
1.       If yes, then the harm falls within the scope of the risk and the defendant is liable
    III.            Foreseeable Harm
a.       Was the harm suffered one of the reasonably foreseeable risks that made the act negligent?
                                                               i.      Example 1: D left a tree standing. P cam speeding by and the tree fell on him. D says that the speeding was the cause of the harm, ct. said that it wasn’t the legal cause and held for P. (Berry v. Sugar)
1.       Foreseeable Risks: A foreseeable risk of speeding is that you might hit something
2.       Non-Foreseeable Risks: Had the tree fallen and then the driver hit it, the ct. probably would say that his speeding was the legal cause.
                                                             ii.      Example 2: Train misses P’s stop and puts her in a hotel. A lantern burns her at the hotel. Ct. held that railroad wasn’t liable. Getting burned in hotel wasn’t in the scope of the risk.
1.       Foreseeable Risks: missing someone stop is negligent because they might have to walk home and could get hurt; these are foreseeable risks.
2.       Non-Foreseeable Risks: getting burned at a hotel is not a foreseeable risk of missing a stop.
b.       Proximate cause must be limited to those causes which are so closely connected with the result and of such significance that the law is justified in imposing liability; proximate cause is “any cause which in the natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause, produces the result complained of and without which the result would not have occurred.”
                                                               i.      People need to be liable for ordinary and natural results of their actions
1.       Things that go beyond the ordinary and natural results of actions are seen as unforeseeable
a.       It’s impossible to protect against an “unforeseeable” consequence
b.       Thus, for the consequences must be foreseeable, natural results of a person’s actions
c.       Policy Issues:
                                                               i.      If you hold people liable for things that could not have been anticipated, you are punishing people for things that they could not have reasonably foreseen and could not have protected themselves against
                                                             ii.      Courts worried about the “slippery slope”
1.       Ex: If they say the RR is liable for house A burning down (Ryan v. New York Central RR Co.) are they then liable for subsequent houses, B, C, D…Z that burn down also?
2.       The court is imposing a legal doctrine to limit liability
    IV.            Duty
a.       Duty as it relates to Proximate Cause
                                                               i.      Duty, breach, damages… if no duty, then no case; no proximate cause
                                                             ii.      Duty is one element under Proximate Cause that the courts will use to cut of liability in the “Ripple of Consequence” pool
b.       Misfeasance v. Nonfeasance
                                                               i.      Misfeasance: a lawful act performed in a wrongful manner; a transgression or trespass; someone is trying to fulfill a promise, but messes up and makes a mistake (WRONGFUL ACTIONS)
                                                             ii.      Nonfeasance: the failure to act when a duty to act existed; D promises to do something and then just doesn’t do it (OMISSION)
1.       Liability for Nonfeasance—courts will impose liability for nonfeasance (omissions) in certain circumstances
c.       Duty to Rescuer—in most cases a rescuer is foreseeable and the defendant is liable for their harm
                                                               i.      You are not required to help someone, however, once you take on the task of rescuing, you owe that person a duty; must take reasonable precautions
1.       Amount of Risk: analyze the facts of the case, and determine if the rescuer’s actions were reasonable. Usually they are.
2.       Doesn’t have to be immediate: the r