Foreseeable that driver might be in the cab and therefore might be in danger at

Foreseeable that driver might be in the cab and

This preview shows page 104 - 106 out of 119 pages.

Foreseeable that driver might be in the cab and therefore might be in danger at the time the rig started moving. Misc Always want to remember the plaintiff does not like superseding cause because jury may be drawn to that object and breaks the link (defendant wants). If both are negligent (both are proximate causes) and is comparative negligence case, must analyze DBCI for both parties (defendant must prove against plaintiff). If there is more than one proximate cause, wont relieve defendant of liability unless they show the other cause would have produced the injury independent of the defendants negligence (this would have happened even if he didn't do anything wrong) Assume he had fell out before he hooked up his hook, doesn't have anything to do with the tow truck driver Note 1: Normal Developments o In context of intervening cause, foreseeability means nothing more than intervening force was a normal consequence of defendant’s conduct. o Normal not in the sense that it was usual or customary but in the sense it was not bizarre or extraordinary Johnson v. Jacobs Intervening criminal or intentionally tortious conduct Facts Man took his daughter for a plane ride and crashed into the mother-in-law’s house. She was supposed to be going to school. He was estranged from his wife. The plaintiff argues that the misuse of the airplane was foreseeable of air strips non existent security procedures. At the time of the crash several witnesses testified the plane did not use the necessary procedures for landing. The father was a flight school attendee, and acquired the keys from an employee, who recognized him from a photograph. It was a routine policy for the flight students to retrieve the keys and putt the airplane out. No one saw his daughter Issue Whether the intervening criminal act of the father is a superseding cause. Whether it was foreseeable for him to crash the plane. (whether the appellees should have foreseen that the father would permit Emily to board as his passenger when he knew that he was not yet authorized to cary a passenger, take off from the airport and intentionally crash into his mother in laws residence) Rule A criminal act will be a superseding cause that breaks the chain of causation if its not foreseeable Holding There was nothing here to suggest that the appellees should have foreseen that the father would use the rented airplane to commit murder and suicide. He was not some unknown, unauthorized person. He was known to the employees, and had scheduled flying lesson. 104
Image of page 104
Torts 1 Outline Note 2: Foreseeable Criminal or intentionally tortious acts o Nixon v. Mr. Property Mgmt co. Young girl was abducted, taken across the street into an abandoned, dilapidated, apartment complex, and raped.
Image of page 105
Image of page 106

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 119 pages?

  • Spring '08
  • Hogshead

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

Stuck? We have tutors online 24/7 who can help you get unstuck.
A+ icon
Ask Expert Tutors You can ask You can ask You can ask (will expire )
Answers in as fast as 15 minutes