GoodToBeTheKing wrote: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.
Exactly. I have no idea why people are talking about reasonable foreseeability. Think about the eggshell skull rule. The whole point is that when you commit an intentional tort, you are held liable even for the unforeseeable circumstances. The liability will extend much further than the typical prox. cause analysis you do for negligence (i.e. scope of the risk, foreseeability, etc). The culpability of the act will greatly affect how far the liability extends.