100%(2)2 out of 2 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 2 - 4 out of 4 pages.
cause them to catch on fire.****)D. An injury doesn’t have to be likely or probable in order to be foreseeable in proximate cause analysis.(Pl throw a
flower pot out of the window, w/ a 10% chance of hitting someone, in this case, the pl will be liable even though risk of hitting someone is not heavily foreseeable.) Intervening Cause (third party interference) =where the act of a third party intervenes b/t a def’s negligent conduct and the pl’s injury, the causal connection is not severed if the intervening act is a normal and foreseeable consequence of the risk created by the def’s negl. conduct. If the intervening act is extraordinary under the circumstances, not foreseeable in the normal course of events, or independent or far removed from the def’s conduct, then is may severe the causal link. Superceding Cause (third party interference) = an intervening cause which is so substantially responsible for the ultimate injury that is acts to cut off the liability of preceding actors regardless whether their prior negligence was or was not a substantial factor in bringing about the injury complained of. (i.e. criminal acts or tortious conduct can generally be considered a superceding cause unless they foreseeable part of the initial negligent act. Note: Rescue Doctrine: allows an injured rescuer to sue the party which caused the danger requiring the rescue in the first place. The doctrine serves to inform tortfeasorsthat it is foreseeable a rescuer will come to aid the person in peril by the tortfeasor’s action, and therefore owes the rescuer a duty similar to the duty to the person he imperiled.