Proximate Causation Clarification
Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2016 3:53 am
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.
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.