Top Law Schools

Hypo: if A batters B, and B then goes to the hospital, which burns down via a freak accident of the hospital, who is liable?

Hypo: if A batters B, and B then goes to the hospital, which burns down because of hospital's negligence, who is liable?

Hypo: If A negligently hits B via car accident, B goes to the hospital, which burns down via a freak accident of the hospital, who is liable?

Hypo: If A negligently hits B via car accident, B goes to the hospital, which burns down because of hospital's negligence, who is liable?

thanks, this would definitely clear up some confusion

I'm not sure, of course, as I'm not a Torts professor, but I don't think that A is going to be held liable for any of those unless the fire is foreseeable. If A and B are in an area where every building in town catches on fire every day, then maybe, but I doubt it.

If A battered B, B went to the hospital, and a doctor negligently gave him the wrong medicine, causing damage, A could be held liable because that was foreseeable (Dr.'s give patients the wrong medicine all the time).

This is how my torts professor teaches it, and yours might feel differently.

the reason i'm asking these hypos is that i could have sworn i saw a problem from my casebook that said that A would be held liable if his tort was intentional. otherwise, proximate cause would take over, and the fire seems like a longshot... in fact, your negligent doctor situation would be a longshot too, no?

with proximate cause, it needs to be foreseeable. the negligent doctor is foreseeable, where a freak fire or negligently-caused fire in a hospital is not foreseeable.

dudnaito wrote:Hypo: if A batters B, and B then goes to the hospital, which burns down via a freak accident of the hospital, who is liable?

Hypo: if A batters B, and B then goes to the hospital, which burns down because of hospital's negligence, who is liable?

Hypo: If A negligently hits B via car accident, B goes to the hospital, which burns down via a freak accident of the hospital, who is liable?

Hypo: If A negligently hits B via car accident, B goes to the hospital, which burns down because of hospital's negligence, who is liable?

thanks, this would definitely clear up some confusion

Liable for what?

with proximate cause, you need to draw the line somewhere. My example of the negligent doctor giving the wrong medicine probably happens thousands of times a day, which makes it foreseeable. If B went in for a broken arm because of A's battery and a negligent doctor amputated his leg, that probably wouldn't be foreseeable, and A probably wouldn't be liable.

kcg171 wrote: This is how my torts professor teaches it, and yours might feel differently.

Your torts professor has instructed you that damages for intentional torts are limited by foreseeability?

Anonymous Loser wrote:

kcg171 wrote: This is how my torts professor teaches it, and yours might feel differently.

Your torts professor has instructed you that damages for intentional torts are limited by foreseeability?

maybe I should have said, "This is how my professor teaches it, as I understand it, and since he has yet to correct me on my understanding, I offer it to you with no warranty of its accuracy, and I apologize if it is misleading, as that is not my intention." That is what I meant.

kcg171 wrote:with proximate cause, it needs to be foreseeable. the negligent doctor is foreseeable, where a freak fire or negligently-caused fire in a hospital is not foreseeable.

is a negligent doctor really forseeable? I guess.... GAAAAAAHHHH I don't know what's going on.. Mwahahahaha (insane laughter)

Forseeability is not to be measured by what is more probable than not, but includes whatever is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably thoughtful person would take account of it in guiding practical conduct.

Yes, malpractice is foreseeable. Just like a car accident is foreseeable.

dudnaito wrote: Forseeability is not to be measured by what is more probable than not, but includes whatever is likely enough in the setting of modern life that a reasonably thoughtful person would take account of it in guiding practical conduct.

This nails it. Everyone knows that going to a doctor has some risk of getting bad care, so if your negligence sends someone to a doctor, and they are that person who happens to get bad care, it's on you. But, not everyone thinks that going to the hospital carries the risk that a freak explosion will occur.