​

Proximate Cause: Indirect Causation

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Direct Cause: An uninterrupted chain of events from the negligent act to the injury.
• Indirect Cause: The acts of a third person (or force) intervene between the defendant’s negligent conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.

• Superseding Act: An intervening act interrupts the causal link (and relieves the original tortfeasor of liability) if the conduct is extraordinary, unforeseeable, and independent.
• Non-Superseding Act: The causal link is not interrupted if the intervening act is a normal, foreseeable consequence flowing naturally from the situation created by the negligent conduct.
  • If the act is superseding, the original tortfeasor’s liability terminates at that point.
  • If the act is not superseding, the original tortfeasor’s liability continues.

• Negligent Acts: Tend to be more foreseeable and flow naturally from the underlying negligence.
• Intentional/Criminal Acts: Tend to be less foreseeable, more extraordinary, and independent; they are more likely to be superseding acts.

​

2. Key Cases

• Facts: Defendant (construction company) failed to secure a worksite with barriers. A driver (Dickens) suffered an epileptic seizure, crashed into the site, and hit the Plaintiff. Plaintiff was thrown into a pot of boiling enamel (which Plaintiff had placed there), catching fire.
• Holding: The driver’s crash was an intervening act, but it was not superseding. The negligence of the construction company (failure to erect barriers) created a foreseeable risk that a vehicle could enter the site. The precise manner of the accident (seizure) need not be foreseeable, only the general risk. Therefore, the construction company remains liable.

• Facts: A railroad tanker negligently leaked fuel. A third party (Duerr) threw a match onto the fuel, causing an explosion that injured the Plaintiff.
• Holding: Whether the intervening act is superseding depends on intent.
  • If the match was dropped negligently (e.g., while smoking), it is foreseeable and liability remains.
  • If the match was thrown maliciously or criminally (to cause a fire), it is unforeseeable/extraordinary and constitutes a superseding act that cuts off the railroad’s liability.

• Facts: Dr. Lewis suffered head trauma in a car accident caused by the defendant. Later, he had seizures and committed suicide.
• Holding: Generally, suicide is an intentional, independent act that is superseding. However, if the accident caused organic brain damage rendering the suicide non-volitional (an uncontrollable impulse), it is not superseding, and the original tortfeasor remains liable.

​

3. Hypotheticals & Examples

• The Ambulance Collision:
  • Scenario: Defendant runs over Plaintiff’s foot. While Plaintiff is in an ambulance, a third-party driver T-bones the ambulance, breaking Plaintiff’s arm.
  • Analysis: The ambulance crash is an intervening act. If the jury finds traffic accidents en route to the hospital are foreseeable (normal consequences of the situation), the original Defendant is liable for both the foot and the arm. If the third driver’s negligence is found to be extraordinary/unforeseeable, it is superseding.
• Medical Malpractice:
  • Scenario: Following an injury caused by Defendant, a doctor operates on the wrong limb.
  • Analysis: Ordinary medical negligence is usually foreseeable and does not cut off liability. It only becomes superseding if the malpractice is extraordinary or independent (gross negligence).
• The Tax Attorney Suicide:
  • Scenario: A man commits suicide before an IRS audit allegedly caused by his attorney’s malpractice.
  • Analysis: The suicide is an intervening act. Unless the malpractice caused an uncontrollable mental state (like in Fuller), the suicide is likely a superseding cause, cutting off the attorney’s liability.

​

Proximate Cause: The Rescue Doctrine

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Rescuers are considered foreseeable plaintiffs.
• The original negligence is the proximate cause of the rescuer’s injury.

​

2. Key Cases

• Facts: Plaintiff stopped to help traffic after a car rolled over due to a defect. While returning to his car, Plaintiff was hit by a hit-and-run driver.
• Holding: The rescue doctrine applies. The defect in the car created the peril. The hit-and-run driver was an intervening act, but liability attaches to the manufacturer because the Plaintiff’s presence on the road as a rescuer was a foreseeable result of the defect.

​

Proximate Cause: Policy Limits

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

​

2. Key Cases

• Facts: Grandmother took DES (drug). Mother was exposed in utero. Granddaughter developed cerebral palsy due to premature birth caused by Mother’s reproductive abnormalities.
• Holding: Liability was cut off at the generation directly exposed (Grandmother and Mother). It was deemed unfair to hold the drug manufacturer liable for injuries to the “third generation” (Granddaughter) who had no direct exposure, drawing a line to avoid perpetual liability.

​

Multiple Tortfeasors

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Essence: The plaintiff can collect the full amount of the judgment from either defendant.
• Risk of Insolvency: The risk that one defendant cannot pay (e.g., bankruptcy, hit-and-run) falls on the defendants, not the plaintiff.

1. Concert of Action: Where two or more tortfeasors act in concert (unison/same goal), each is jointly and severally liable for the entire injury, even if the injury is divisible.
2. Indivisible Injury: Where two or more independent tortious acts combine to proximately cause an indivisible injury, each tortfeasor is jointly and severally liable.

• Risk of Insolvency: The risk falls on the plaintiff. If a defendant is bankrupt, the plaintiff cannot collect that portion of the damages.

​

2. Key Cases

• Facts: Two drivers were drag racing. One driver (Race) lost control and hit the Plaintiff. The other driver (Brzezinski) did not hit the Plaintiff.
• Holding: Both drivers were engaged in concerted action (racing). Therefore, they are jointly and severally liable. Brzezinski is liable for the full amount even though his car did not make contact.

• Facts: Plaintiff killed by machinery. Manufacturer argued that because the employer was also negligent (but immune), the manufacturer should only pay its % of fault (comparative negligence).
• Holding: The court retained joint and several liability. Even with comparative negligence principles, a plaintiff can collect the full amount from any one defendant.

• Holding: The court abolished joint and several liability in favor of pure comparative fault. Defendants are only liable for their specific percentage of fault. If a co-defendant is unknown (hit-and-run) or bankrupt, the plaintiff absorbs that loss.

​

3. Nuance & Policy

• Plaintiff vs. Defendant Benefit:
  • Joint & Several Liability benefits the Plaintiff (ensures full recovery even if one defendant is broke).
  • Several Liability (Comparative Fault) benefits the Defendant (protects them from paying more than their assigned share of fault).
• Contribution: (Previewed for next class) If one defendant pays the full amount under joint and several liability, they may seek “contribution” (reimbursement) from the other joint tortfeasors.