Top Law Schools

if A batters B, and B goes to hospital, and freak fire happens, then A is not liable for B's fire-incurred injuries, and the hospital is not held negligible either, so does that mean that B cannot recover at all even though A's action is a clear example of cause in fact under "but-for" test... i know it doesn't pass proximate cause, but there seems to be an issue of justice here, or am i just soft?

You've got it right.

But, why would it be more "just" to make A pay for something he couldn't have foreseen, stopped, or avoided, and that is in no way related to the wrong he committed?

Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.

kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.

Here is my take:

Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.

Here is my take:

Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?

This makes my head spin.

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.

Here is my take:

Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?

That's what I meant. A couldn't reasonably foresee a freak fire.

If he beat B so badly and B was being kept alive by machines and woke up and in a daze pulled his tubes out and died, then something like that would probably be classed as "reasonably foreseeable".

But a freak fire? That's more the hospital's fault for not exercising due care with its patients and getting them out.

It's not foreseeable that a freak fire accident (reminiscent of the freak gasoline fight accidents) would happen at the hospital. It's also not anforeseeable harm in a unforeseeable manner. This seems like an easy line to draw with legal causation.

Although I have to say, this seems about as foreseeable as a surgeon operating him while drunk. That argument makes little sense to me. But hey, I'm not here to formulate opinions.

Renzo wrote:

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.

Here is my take:

Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?

This makes my head spin.

Haha I'm just saying that to get over the "intentional tort" speed bump, you could argue that the fire (act of god) was a superceding cause just like another int. tort or act of negligence would be. I don't think the issue is cut and dry at all and you could definitely argue the other side pretty well.

kalvano wrote:

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.

Here is my take:

Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?

That's what I meant. A couldn't reasonably foresee a freak fire.

To argue the other side, Putney couldn't reasonably foresee Vosburg's leg falling off. I think intentional torts is much more lenient on the forseeability of the end result and as long as the harm flows uninterrupted from the breach, A should be held liable. This would require arguing that the fire is not an interruption because it is not technically a third party act.

mths wrote:

Renzo wrote:

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote:Is it reasonably foreseeable? I wouldn't think so.

Here is my take:

Even though A intended to cause the injury and he could reasonably foresee that his battery would send B to the hospital, can't you still argue that the injuries sustained in the hospital are third party intervention? I mean, acts of God aren't recoverable and it seems unjust and over deterrence to hold A liable for something not only not reasonably forseeable but also not a proximate result of his actions. Like, it would be different if A got beat up in the hospital by someone so why, by the same measure, can you not include a fire in that category?

This makes my head spin.

Haha I'm just saying that to get over the "intentional tort" speed bump, you could argue that the fire (act of god) was a superceding cause just like another int. tort or act of negligence would be. I don't think the issue is cut and dry at all and you could definitely argue the other side pretty well.

I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.

mths wrote:To argue the other side, Putney couldn't reasonably foresee Vosburg's leg falling off. I think intentional torts is much more lenient on the forseeability of the end result and as long as the harm flows uninterrupted from the breach, A should be held liable. This would require arguing that the fire is not an interruption because it is not technically a third party act.

Vosburg wouldn't apply. This isn't an Eggshell Rule case. B wasn't a genetic mutant prone to start fires from nothing when battered and put in the hospital. If he was, then A would have to take B as he was.

The harm was interrupted. By the ambulance ride, the doctor visits, etc.

Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.

I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.

kalvano wrote:

mths wrote:To argue the other side, Putney couldn't reasonably foresee Vosburg's leg falling off. I think intentional torts is much more lenient on the forseeability of the end result and as long as the harm flows uninterrupted from the breach, A should be held liable. This would require arguing that the fire is not an interruption because it is not technically a third party act.

Vosburg wouldn't apply. This isn't an Eggshell Rule case. B wasn't a genetic mutant prone to start fires from nothing when battered and put in the hospital. If he was, then A would have to take B as he was.

The harm was interrupted. By the ambulance ride, the doctor visits, etc.

You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.

mths wrote:

Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.

I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.

Not really, not for something like a freak fire.

If the attending ER physician had been an idiot and caused B to die, then you could have a case against A.

kalvano wrote:

mths wrote:

Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.

I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.

Not really, not for something like a freak fire.

If the attending ER physician had been an idiot and caused B to die, then you could have a case against A.

That's exactly when you wouldn't have a case.

mths wrote:

Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.

I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.

Why? I've never heard an argument that whether a superseding cause breaks the causal chain depends on whether the origina tort was negligent or intentional.

mths wrote:You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.

There's a big difference between something that happens as a direct result of your action, even if it couldn't be foreseen, and harm that comes from something that is completely unrelated to what you did.

kalvano wrote:

mths wrote:You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.

There's a big difference between something that happens as a direct result of your action, even if it couldn't be foreseen, and harm that comes from something that is completely unrelated to what you did.

haha just trying to make a counterargument guys, I made the other one first. There's always a counterargument.

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote:

mths wrote:

Renzo wrote: I think you're right, except about the part about it not being cut-and-dried. The fire is pretty unarguably a superseding cause. It's neither a foreseeable consequence nor an unforeseeable consequence in a foreseeable manner.

I still hold that it's not cut and dried. If the tort was a negligent act, it would be. Since it's intentional, there is room for debate.

Not really, not for something like a freak fire.

If the attending ER physician had been an idiot and caused B to die, then you could have a case against A.

That's exactly when you wouldn't have a case.

Do what now?

kalvano wrote: Do what now?

If the attending physician caused B to die then B would have a case against the physician, not A...

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote:

mths wrote:You're right, Vosburg is out of place there I was just trying to make the point that in intentional torts, the harm doesn't always have to be foreseeable in order for the defendant to be liable.

There's a big difference between something that happens as a direct result of your action, even if it couldn't be foreseen, and harm that comes from something that is completely unrelated to what you did.

haha just trying to make a counterargument guys, I made the other one first. There's always a counterargument.

You play a good devils avocado

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote: Do what now?

If the attending physician caused B to die then B would have a case against the physician, not A...

You would still have a case against both, if the accident caused B to go to the hospital. It is foreseeable for malpractice to happen at a hospital (however scary that sounds). Now, if the physician was intentionally harming B. . .

mths wrote:

kalvano wrote: Do what now?

If the attending physician caused B to die then B would have a case against the physician, not A...

TLS needs a facepalm smiley.

we still have /facepalm.

dudnaito wrote:if A batters B, and B goes to hospital, and freak fire happens, then A is not liable for B's fire-incurred injuries, and the hospital is not held negligible either, so does that mean that B cannot recover at all even though A's action is a clear example of cause in fact under "but-for" test... i know it doesn't pass proximate cause, but there seems to be an issue of justice here, or am i just soft?

if A batters B he is liable for all of the damages that occurred from that battery, even those that are unforeseen. I am not sure why you are even bringing in the but-for test, proximate cause, etc. because this is not a negligence case.