Torts - Third Restatement Causal Set Question

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Jimbo_Jones
Posts: 196
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 9:36 am

Torts - Third Restatement Causal Set Question

Postby Jimbo_Jones » Mon May 06, 2013 1:27 pm

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?



Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], splitterfromhell and 4 guests