Could be immediately traced to the wrong committed by

could be immediately traced to the wrong committed by
the guard, and the fact of the wrong and the fact of the
injury should be enough to find negligence.
NOTE: On a test, how will I do this?
Analyze Duty!
1. If it’s a general duty question, analyze it according to the basic general
rule: a person owes a duty of reasonable care to another whenever their
conduct creates a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of bodily harm to
another.
2. BUT, under a Cardozo approach, there is no duty to the unforeseeable
plaintiff. Then, the question of unforeseeable categories of plaintiffs…
look at Andrews approach
3. Then go to Breach, CIF, PC (apply only foreseeability/scope of the risk),
Dmgs
*** ALWAYS say you will deal with it at one, EITHER at proximate cause OR
duty… and then SAY that you WILL deal with it, or you ALREADY dealt with it.
vi. Negligence by rescuers is deemed foreseeable. The original
tortfeasor is liable. They are not solely liable – they are jointly
and severally liable with the rescuer for exacerbation of the
injury. It becomes an indivisible injury.
vii.Medical Negligence – ordinarily deemed foreseeable – during the
slip and fall I break my arm, and doctor fixes me wrong, then
the law school and the doctor are jointly and severally liable
viii. When you want to argue for the defendant that it was not
negligent, then you argue OUTSIDE of scope of liability
ix. Polemis decision (that plaintiff is entitled to recover once the
defendant’s act is proven to be negligent, and the harm did not
have to be foreseeable)
x. If there is another cause, ask if it is a superseding cause or just
an intervening cause (flaming rat)
1. Adoption of joint and several + right of contribution +
comparative fault means we DON’T need superseding cause
instruction anymore!