I know it is required for negligence and abnormally dangerous activities. What about nuisance? Is proximate cause required for all torts?
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
2 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2010 10:31 pm
I don't know about saying it's "required" in a strict sense of the word, but I guess there can always be some proximate cause train-of-thought for most torts (most commonly along the line of "injury x was too remote from act y"). I don't know about nuisance, though. I'm drawing a blank, but the only thing that would be coming close is whether or not the thing which is being labeled as a nuisance is a natural consequence of the activity (which in of itself is inconclusive). But to answer your question, I personally haven't seen a tort cause of action so far that uses proximate cause has heavily as negligence (but your mileage on interpretation of elements on some of these causes of action may vary).
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests