Hi - I am having some difficult understanding proximate causation. I took torts near 8 years ago and am only now getting around to taking the bar, so I apologize if this sounds very elementary. I tend to understand things better through flowcharts, so here goes (assuming there has been a ready of duty):
Q1: Was the harm was foreseeable?
If yes, was D's action a direct cause? Go to Q2.
If no, D not liable.
Q2: Was D's action's a direct cause of P's harm?
If yes, D liable.
If no, go to Q3.
Q3: Was there an intervening cause?
If yes, go to Q4.
If no, D not liable.
Q4: Was the intervening cause foreseeable?
If yes, D liable.
If no, D not liable.
Am I understanding this correctly? Obviously, the other elements of negligence need to be satisfied as well, but just want to make sure I understand proximate causation as I should.
Proximate Causation Clarification Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
Catsinthebag
- Posts: 119
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 1:14 pm
Re: Proximate Causation Clarification
You've basically got it, but it's not so cut-and-dry around Q3 & 4. There is also the possibility of concurrent causes, for example, and the standard isn't foreseeable, rather it is reasonably foreseeable (or foreseeable to a reasonable person). Also, note the four jurisdictions where there could be contributory negligence. But for being 8 years out, quite nice!ok2bedifferent wrote:Hi - I am having some difficult understanding proximate causation. I took torts near 8 years ago and am only now getting around to taking the bar, so I apologize if this sounds very elementary. I tend to understand things better through flowcharts, so here goes (assuming there has been a ready of duty):
Q1: Was the harm was foreseeable?
If yes, was D's action a direct cause? Go to Q2.
If no, D not liable.
Q2: Was D's action's a direct cause of P's harm?
If yes, D liable.
If no, go to Q3.
Q3: Was there an intervening cause?
If yes, go to Q4.
If no, D not liable.
Q4: Was the intervening cause foreseeable?
If yes, D liable.
If no, D not liable.
Am I understanding this correctly? Obviously, the other elements of negligence need to be satisfied as well, but just want to make sure I understand proximate causation as I should.
