(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )

Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 2:40 pm


Postby portaprokoss » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:36 pm

Negligence. If I fall asleep in the backseat of a car, then jerk in my sleep and kick the driver in the head causing him to wreck. On an exam should I analyze foreseeablity under duty or proximate cause or both?


Posts: 2992
Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am

Re: duty

Postby 03121202698008 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:38 pm

Duty if policy. Proximate cause if requires development of specific facts. Under both restatements...the Third suggests duty to all but if you read the comment it specifically recognizes limitations of duty due to policy reasons...however it cautions they should be well articulated and not necessarily labeled foreseeability.

User avatar

Posts: 788
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 11:38 pm

Re: duty

Postby ben4847 » Wed Dec 21, 2011 5:45 pm



Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm

Re: duty

Postby zomginternets » Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:54 pm

Honestly, just about everything in negligence is foreseeability couched in a different term. For duty, foreseeability is a straight up policy factor. For breach under the hand formula, you gotta determine the "probability of harm"--this is basically foreseeability. Proximate cause is essentially a foreseeability analysis (couched in terms of "likelihood" of harm, and intervening causes).

A lot of the time you'll be reanalyzing the same facts and rehashing the same arguments at each stage of the negligence analysis. This freaked me out at first because I thought I was surely misapplying the facts to the theory. But it's totally normal.


Posts: 946
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 12:49 am

Re: duty

Postby missinglink » Thu Dec 22, 2011 1:43 pm

Given a standard issue spotter, I'd always argue duty.

That is to say, both.

Return to “Forum for Law School Students�

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests