Even if the fire was a but for cause of injury the fire had come to rest and

Even if the fire was a but for cause of injury the

This preview shows page 29 - 31 out of 101 pages.

Even if the fire was a but-for cause of injury, the fire had come to rest, and the injury was UN4seeable to D’s conduct b/c walking across the pipe was not necessary under the circumstances. Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council (p. 299) – RISK RULE When it is reasonably foreseeable that children will want to explore (rotting boat), then you cannot escape liability just because you did not foresee the injury. Wagon mound not meant to say type of harm AND extent of harm had to be foreseeable 29
Image of page 29
Characterizing the injury / Consequence of the Breach of Duty Trial court perception of general risk: Children would meddle with the boat at the risk of some physical injury Appeals Court perception of Only Foreseeable Risk : Children would be drawn to the boat, play on it and hurt themselves by way of rotten planking √ - THIS IS FORSEEABLE X – THIS IS HIGHLY UNFORSEABLE (The more specific the better) General Principle: Reasonable foreseeability Determination of liability (2 stage test) o The existence of a duty depends on whether the injury is foreseeable o Once the duty is established, D is liable for any injury directly caused by an act in breach of that duty whether the injury was reasonably foreseeable Unless injury is reasonably foreseeable, it is outside the scope of the duty or too remote. Ventricelli v. Kinney Sys. Rent A Car, Inc. (p. 284) Getting hit from behind outside car not within scope of risks of a defective trunk Rule: While it may have been foreseeable that P would continue to slam the trunk lid to close it, the manner in which P was injured (a collision between, essentially, two safely parked vehicles) was not foreseeable. Time Expiration of Risk – did the risk subside? Marshall v. Nugent (p. 287) 3 rd party strikes signaling driver after accident, proximate cause to first accident - P gets out to direct traffic and non-negligent 3 rd party hits P. - Consequences of initial negligence were still in play. However, if P was injured 5 miles down the road, D’s negligence would not be proximate cause (expiration of risk). Superseding Cause Second cause can function as relieving the perpetrator of a prior wrongdoing of responsibility, even though the prior wrongdoing was a but-for cause of the victim’s injury - Instances in which the path from D’s careless acts to P’s injuries is sufficiently odd or indirect as to warrant the conclusion that , notwithstanding the actual causal connection between the act and the injury, the injury cannot fairly be deemed something that D did or inflicted on P. Test: The test is not about the number of intervening consequences, but in their character and in the natural connection between the wrong down, the injurious consequences, and if such a result is attributable to the original negligence, as a result which might be reasonably foreseen as probably, the liability continues The test is in the character of the intervening act [ CLARK] 1) Negligence to the proximate cause of an injury must be such that a RSN person would have foreseen that some injury would likely result therefrom , not that the specific injury that would result. The Q
Image of page 30
Image of page 31

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 101 pages?

  • Fall '08
  • Sebok
  • Tort Law, Co., duty to rescue

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture