Negligence - Problems relating to remote or unforeseeable causes

Learning Outcomes

This article examines the concept of proximate cause, an essential element in negligence analysis frequently tested on the MBE. It details the foreseeability requirement, distinguishes between foreseeable and unforeseeable consequences, and explains how intervening and superseding causes affect liability. Upon completing this review, you will be equipped to analyze causation issues involving remoteness and unforeseeability in negligence fact patterns, applying the relevant legal principles to determine liability on the MBE.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, a comprehensive understanding of proximate cause (legal cause) within the broader topic of negligence is essential. This includes analyzing the scope of liability and the impact of subsequent events. You should be prepared to:

• Define proximate cause and distinguish it from actual cause (cause-in-fact).
• Apply the foreseeability test to determine the scope of liability.
• Differentiate between foreseeable plaintiffs and unforeseeable plaintiffs (Palsgraf).
• Analyze liability when the type or extent of harm is unforeseeable.
• Identify intervening forces and determine if they are foreseeable or unforeseeable (superseding).
• Evaluate how foreseeable intervening forces (e.g., rescuer negligence, medical malpractice, subsequent accidents) affect the chain of causation.
• Determine when an unforeseeable intervening force constitutes a superseding cause that cuts off the defendant's liability.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

1. To establish proximate cause in a negligence action, the plaintiff must generally show that:
   1. The defendant's conduct was the sole cause of the injury.
   2. The plaintiff's injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent act.
   3. The defendant intended the specific harm that occurred.
   4. But for the defendant's conduct, the injury would not have occurred.
2. Driver negligently runs a red light, causing Pedestrian to jump back onto the curb. Seconds later, a meteorite strikes Pedestrian. Is Driver liable for Pedestrian's injuries from the meteorite?
   1. Yes, because Driver's negligence set the events in motion.
   2. Yes, under the "eggshell plaintiff" rule.
   3. No, because the meteorite strike was an unforeseeable, superseding cause.
   4. No, because Driver lacked the intent to harm Pedestrian.
3. Which of the following intervening forces is LEAST likely to be considered foreseeable and thus LEAST likely to prevent the original tortfeasor's liability?
   1. Negligent medical treatment aggravating the plaintiff's initial injury.
   2. An intentional criminal act by a third party that exploits the situation created by the defendant's negligence.
   3. A subsequent accident caused by the plaintiff's weakened condition resulting from the initial injury.
   4. Negligence of rescuers coming to the plaintiff's aid after the initial injury.

Introduction

Once actual cause (cause-in-fact) is established in a negligence claim, the analysis shifts to proximate cause, also known as legal cause. Proximate cause concerns the scope of liability – determining whether the defendant should be held legally responsible for the harm caused. While actual cause asks if the defendant's conduct was a factual prerequisite to the injury ("but for" the conduct...), proximate cause asks whether the connection between the conduct and the injury is sufficiently close to justify imposing liability. This often involves assessing the foreseeability of the harm and the effect of any intervening events.

The core issue is whether the plaintiff's injury was among the risks that made the defendant's conduct negligent in the first place. Unforeseeable results or unforeseeable intervening forces can break the chain of proximate causation, relieving the defendant of liability even if their negligence was an actual cause of the harm.

Proximate Cause: The Foreseeability Test

The prevailing test for proximate cause is foreseeability. The defendant is generally liable only for consequences of his negligence that were reasonably foreseeable at the time he acted. This means the defendant's liability is limited to those harms that result from the risks that made the defendant's conduct tortious.

Key Term: Proximate Cause A legal limitation on liability; requires that the plaintiff's injury be a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's negligent conduct, often meaning the injury was within the scope of the risk created by that conduct.

Key Term: Foreseeability The predictability of an event or result based on what a reasonably prudent person would have anticipated under the circumstances. In proximate cause analysis, it relates to the foreseeability of the type of harm and, in some views, the plaintiff.

Under the majority view (Cardozo in Palsgraf), the defendant owes a duty only to foreseeable plaintiffs – those within the zone of foreseeable harm. If the plaintiff was unforeseeable, the defendant breaches no duty to that plaintiff, and proximate cause is irrelevant. Under the minority view (Andrews in Palsgraf), a duty is owed to everyone, and foreseeability is dealt with under proximate cause – was this type of harm to this plaintiff foreseeable? Both approaches usually yield the same result: no liability for harm to unforeseeable plaintiffs.

Unforeseeable Extent of Harm

The "eggshell plaintiff" rule applies: the defendant takes the plaintiff as he finds him. If the defendant’s negligence causes foreseeable type of physical injury, the defendant is liable for the full extent of that injury, even if the extent was unforeseeable due to the plaintiff's pre-existing condition or unusual sensitivity.

Unforeseeable Type of Harm

If the defendant's negligence creates a risk of a particular type of harm, but a completely different and unforeseeable type of harm occurs, the defendant is generally not liable for that harm. The harm must be within the scope of the risk created by the defendant's conduct.

Intervening and Superseding Causes

An intervening cause is a force that comes into play after the defendant's negligent act and combines with it to cause the plaintiff's injury. The key question is whether the intervening cause cuts off the defendant's liability (making it a superseding cause). This usually depends on foreseeability.

Key Term: Intervening Cause A force which takes effect after the defendant's negligence and which contributes to producing the plaintiff's injury.

Key Term: Superseding Cause An unforeseeable, intervening cause that breaks the chain of causation between the initial negligent act and the ultimate injury, relieving the original tortfeasor of liability.

Foreseeable Intervening Forces

Foreseeable intervening forces do not cut off the defendant's liability. The original defendant remains liable for harm caused by foreseeable intervening forces that are normal responses or reactions to the situation created by the defendant's negligence. Common examples include:

1. Subsequent Medical Malpractice: Negligent medical treatment provided for the injuries caused by the defendant is generally considered foreseeable. The original tortfeasor is usually liable for the aggravation caused by the subsequent malpractice.
2. Negligence of Rescuers: "Danger invites rescue." Negligence by those attempting to rescue the plaintiff (or the defendant) is generally foreseeable.
3. Protection or Reaction Forces: Efforts by the plaintiff or others to protect person or property from the danger caused by the defendant's negligence are foreseeable. Similarly, forces "reacting" to the defendant's negligence (e.g., other drivers swerving, crowds stampeding) are foreseeable.
4. Subsequent Diseases or Accidents: If the defendant's negligence leaves the plaintiff weakened, subsequent diseases (e.g., catching pneumonia while recovering) or accidents (e.g., falling while on crutches) are often foreseeable results for which the original defendant is liable.

Unforeseeable Intervening Forces (Superseding Causes)

An intervening force that produces unforeseeable results will generally be deemed superseding, breaking the causal chain and relieving the defendant of liability.

1. Criminal Acts of Third Parties: Intentional torts or criminal acts by third parties are often considered unforeseeable superseding causes unless the defendant's negligence created a foreseeable risk of such conduct occurring.
   • Example: Defendant negligently leaves keys in a car in a high-crime area. Thief steals car and negligently injures Plaintiff. Defendant may be liable because the theft and subsequent negligent driving were foreseeable risks of leaving keys in the car in that location.
   • Contrast: Defendant negligently spills oil on highway. Arsonist intentionally ignites oil, injuring Plaintiff. Arsonist's act is likely superseding.
2. Extraordinary Acts of Nature ("Acts of God"): These are generally considered unforeseeable and superseding unless the defendant's negligence increased the risk of harm from such an event.

Worked Example 1.1

Driver negligently crashes into a utility pole, causing a power outage in the neighborhood. As a result, Homeowner's electronically controlled security system fails. Burglar, noticing the outage and lack of security lights, breaks into Homeowner's house and steals valuables. Is Driver liable for the value of the stolen items?

Answer: Likely no. While the power outage was a foreseeable result of Driver's negligence, the subsequent independent criminal act by Burglar may be considered an unforeseeable intervening force (a superseding cause). Driver's negligence did not create the specific risk of burglary in the way that, for example, leaving keys in a car might create a risk of theft. The criminal act breaks the chain of proximate causation.

Worked Example 1.2

Motorist negligently injures Biker, breaking Biker's leg. While Biker is recovering in the hospital, Nurse negligently administers the wrong medication, causing Biker additional injury. Is Motorist liable for the injuries caused by Nurse's negligence?

Answer: Yes. Subsequent negligent medical treatment is considered a foreseeable intervening force. The original tortfeasor (Motorist) is liable for the harm caused by their own negligence as well as for any foreseeable aggravation of the injury resulting from subsequent negligent medical care.

Exam Warning

Do not confuse foreseeability of the plaintiff (zone of danger analysis under duty/Palsgraf) with foreseeability of the type of harm or intervening force (proximate cause analysis). An injury might be directly caused by the defendant's act, but if the type of harm was unforeseeable, proximate cause may be lacking. Similarly, even if the plaintiff was foreseeable, an unforeseeable intervening cause might break the causal chain.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

• Proximate cause limits liability to consequences that bear a reasonable relationship to the defendant's negligence.
• The primary test for proximate cause is foreseeability.
• Liability generally extends only to foreseeable types of harm, not necessarily the foreseeable extent (eggshell plaintiff rule applies).
• Liability generally extends only to foreseeable plaintiffs (zone of danger).
• Intervening forces that are foreseeable do not break the causal chain.
• Common foreseeable intervening forces include negligent rescue, subsequent medical malpractice, reaction forces, and subsequent diseases/accidents.
• Unforeseeable intervening forces, especially criminal acts or intentional torts of third parties, may be superseding causes that cut off liability.

Key Terms and Concepts

• Proximate Cause
• Foreseeability
• Intervening Cause
• Superseding Cause