Hypo - Let's say A negligently sells B a fake ID and B goes to C's bar where C negligently starts a fire that burns B.
When dealing with causation in fact with respect to A's liability to B under Restatement 3rd §27 cmt f, A's negligence might not have been a sufficient but-for cause of B's burn injury (wouldn't have been at the bar w/o the fake ID but wouldn't have been burned w/o C's negligence), but is still a necessary element of sufficient causal set with C's negligence and therefore a cause in fact.
Prox/legal cause fails though because C's negligence is an intervening cause that is unforeseeable and therefore superseding.
Sound about right?
(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
1 post • Page 1 of 1