Any yes answers = ancillary risk= scope issue§5.02 APPLICATIONS OF THE FORESIGHT RULE[A] UNFORESEEABLE PLAINTIFFS25
Palsgraf : P was standing on a platform of ∆’s railroad, a passenger, carry a package jumped aboard a train car but seemed unsteady so the guard reached forward to help him dislodging the package in which fireworks exploded causing injuries to the ∏ Whether the plaintiff, or the class of persons of which the plaintiff is a member, were within the scope of risks created by the defendant’s negligent conduct[B] UNFORESEEABLE CONSEQUENCESJusti: hotel guest w collapsed lung after evacuating hotelManner of Harm Rule:as long as the defendant’s negligence created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the general kind of harm that befell the plaintiff, the exact way or precise manner the harm occurs does not matter for purposes of scope of liability. (NOT A GOOD CASE, ALMOST DIRECT CONSEQUENCES)Plaintiff attorneys will generalize risk to bring it within scopeDefendant attorneys will characterize it as a freakish event to carry it outside of scope[C] INTERVENING FORCESUsually criminal acts, negligence, or natural forces CRIMINAL CONDUCT OF A THIRD PERSONMcClenahan v Cooley- car was stolen by a third party who hit and killed people 3 prong test for proximate causation: 1) the tortfesor’s conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the harm being complained of and 2) there is no rule or policy that should relieve the wrongdoer from liability b/c of the manner in which the negligence has resulted in the harm and 3) the harm giving rise to the action could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated by a person of ordinary intelligence and prudence §5.03 EXCEPTIONS TO THE FORESIGHT RULEAs a matter of policy, we’re going to say these types of cases are foreseeable whether they “actually” are or not. Therefore, don’t need a jury to determine the foreseeability[A] THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE COMPLICATIONS RULEARC- ∆’s son had seizures and was swimming in a pool at day camp and went face down into the pool Rule: “ the law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original injury as the proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent negligent or unskillful treatment thereof, and hold him liable therefore.” Medical malpractice cannot be used as a superseding event, it’s automatically made foreseeable bythe court.P can sue original tortfeasor for all damages including those related to subsequent malpractice.Proving medical malpractice is expensive and difficult; allows P full recovery in one suit.Shifts the burden for the original tortfeasor to seek contribution from allegedly careless physician26
[B] THE EGGSHELL (THIN-SKULLED) PLAINTIFF RULE (SIMILAR TO DIRECTNESS TEST)RULE:Negligent actor is subject to liability for harm to another although a physical condition of the other which is neither known or should be known to the actor makes the injury greater than that which the actor as a reasonable man should have foreseen as a probable result of his conduct.