Extension_Cord wrote:No offense brother, but you are tripping me out.
1. When you use quotation marks around something I posted, thats a quote of what I stated.
2. When I said most schools use the palsgraf tests, that doesn't imply you go to the only school that teaches direct causation. My school does too btw. We also covered the Restatement and other foreseeability theories.
3. I don't know where you got the causation is a limitation on intentional torts, like your trollin right?
4. My multiple statements on proximate cause were that there is no PC in intentional torts therefore there is no ESP in intentional torts, but the results are the same. I said this multiple times, but it always the same statement.
5. Andrews is roughly similar to Andrews. He has his own thing going on that has direct causation involved aswell as foreseeability in a lesser degree.
6. I believed I referenced pages 166 and 10, not 153 and 155 and we weren't discussing andrews theory on proximate cause at the time. We were discussing ESP and intentional torts.
7. I don't believe your teacher would tell you direct causation is the dominate form of PC.
8. I don't understand what you mean by ESP being the first/second one.
1. ok fair enough
2. I was referencing how you said there is only 1 dominant theory. I then mentioned my casebook that is widely used that does not say which is more dominant. It says there are 2 approaches.
3. No. I got that from a direct quote of you. Reading comprehension, brother.
Extension_Cord wrote:My book states the ESP only speaks to the proximate cause. Proximate cause isn't a limitation in intentional torts as far I know.
4. You're half wrong - there is ESP in intentional torts . Here is the wikipedia, but it puts it in plain english for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
5&6 go together because that is how I originally mentioned them. On page 153 of Emmanuel's outline (which you referenced earlier so I'm assuming you have it. That is the only reason I even mentioned Emmanuel) it says how Andrews is "roughly similar to direct causation." Yes we were talking about ESP and intentional torts when you mentioned it, but I brought it back up because it was something we could both look at. You mistakenly referenced page 166 when it should have been 155 (unless we have different editions) because that is where ESP is in the causation chapter of Emmanuel. It lists it as 3(a)(i) on page 155. Section 3 is the "Exceptions to the foreseeable-consequences approach" (which makes it seem like direct causation to me).
7. He prefers it for a variety of reasons.
8. See 4 things above. Again, reading comprehension. It was a sentence after exceptions to foreseeability and how I had just referenced page 155.
I'm done with this.