First, and according to my prof, since we are dealing with two (potentially) negligent defendants we must use the substantial factor analysis.
"Actual causation is proved using the substantial factor analysis when there are two (or more) negligent defendants. Here, A's breach of duty (to not put the box in the street) was a substantial factor in causing C's harm"
Second, the facts say that B pushed over C...this is hugely different than C "tripping" over the box....and the hypo says "middle of the street"
I like that you took advantage of the ambiguity of that phrase. Does middle of the street equal dead center or closer to a crosswalk. This could definitely play a huge role in establishing prox cause. I think the best thing is your analysis because ultimately its the analysis that gets points.
If cardozo is satisfied then andrews will always be satisfied. However if cardozo is not satisfied b/c plaintiff is not foreseeable then you can argue the andrews approach. Does that make sense? If you start by saying plaintiff (C) is foreseeable, then there is no need to tack on andrews.
Andrews comes into play if plaintiff not foreseeable and/or the harm was not in the foreseeable risks of the negligent conduct. So, if there is not a duty to the plaintiff BUT there is a duty to someone then cardozo fails but andrews would allow recovery ("unsocial" conduct bit) to those injured directly from the negligent act as long as it is not too far in time and space (attenuated).
All in all, i liked it. Many points will be given in your analysis!
Crazy because even though i think it is not likely prox cause under cardozo and potentially prox cause under andrews, both approaches seem to work.
Thanks. All our professors have different ideas what is correct. For example, I will keep most of my proximate cause arguments to 1) type of harm and 2) foreseeable plaintiff (use Cardozo and Andrews). He has separate manner and extents. On every test since the dawn of time, EVERY defendant was negligent, so I have been attempting to argue both ways but conclude PC.