Cause in fact/Proximate Case/ Joint and Several Liability/Defenses to Negligence/Strict Liability

Three Situations where Defendants are Jointly & Severally Liable

1. If the Ds are acting in concert with each other, it doesn't matter that only one causes the bad result. 2. Ds who act independently of one another but cause an indivisible harm. 3. Respondeat superior/vicarious liability

Implied Assumption of the Risk

1. Inherent in the activity 2. Must show actual subjective knowledge of the risk, understanding the scope of the risk and 3. voluntary encountering of the risk.

The Rescue Doctrine

1. The defendant was negligent to the victim and the negligence caused the peril or appearance of peril. 2. The peril or appearance of peril appeared imminent 3. A Reasonably Prudent Person would have concluded that peril existed 4. The rescuer acted with reasonable care. McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp.: After a car accident involving a suzuki car, the plaintiff pulled over to help the state trooper put up flares a distance away from the accident scene. The accident was clear and while the plaintiff was walking back, the trooper pulled away, and the plaintiff was hit from behind in a hit and run. Rule: The injured rescuer has to show that the defendant proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries, and that defendant proximately caused the danger that created the rescue.

Assumption of the Risk

A defense against negligence that can be used when the plaintiff was aware of a danger and voluntarily assumed the risk of injury from that danger. The P might act carefully but still _voluntarily assumes a known risk. If the D can prove that the assumption was voluntary, the P cannot recover at all

Contributory Negligence

A legal defense that may be raised when the defendant feels that the conduct of the plaintiff somehow contributed to any injuries or damages that were sustained by the plaintiff. D must prove that P's conduct was unreasonable, and, P's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm P suffered, and, P exposed himself to risks by his ownact of negligence Plaintiff is barred from recovery

Superseding Acts

A superseding act is one that takes effect after the defendant's negligence but doesn't flow from the original negligence and cuts off the defendant's liability. - A intervening act is a superseding act when it is: (1) ___Extraordinary under the circumstances; or (2) Not __foreseeable_ in the normal course of events; or (3) _Independent; or (4) __Far removed from the D's conduct. ***The question you want to answer when you see intervening acts is whether it has become a superseding act - meaning that it breaks the chain of events so that the defendant is no longer liable. Events that do not flow from the original negligence Ex. intentionally lighting a match and throwing it into gasoline; criminal conduct; improbable or extraordinary event; gross medical malpractice Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & RR Co. -Facts:D negligently caused a tank full of gasoline to spill onto a street. Bystander struck a match and tossed it into a gas spill, igniting a fire that injured P. P sued alleging its negligent gas spill was the proximate cause of his injuries. Trial court held that the bystander's lighting match was an intervening, superseding criminal act and not reasonably foreseeable. D wouldn't be liable.

Intervening Acts

An intervening cause is a force that takes effect after the defendant's negligence, and which contributes to that negligence in producing the plaintiff's injury Events that are foreseeable as a result of the negligent conduct in the ordinary course of events Ex. a car crashing into an unprotected excavation site is foreseeable; negligently lighting a match; normal medical malpractice

Eggshell Plaintiff Rule:

D takes P as he finds him and is liable for the full extent of P's injuries, regardless of whether they are foreseeable. Bartolone v. Jeckovich: D is liable for aggravating a pre-existing mental illness because the initial minor injury of whiplash was foreseeable.

Market Share Liability

Each defendant will be held liable for the porportion of the judgment represented by its share of that market unless it demonstrates that it could have not made the product which caused the plaintiff's injuries. Rule: Two independent tortfeasors may be held jointly liable if its is impossible to tell which one caused P's injuries, and the burden of proof will shift to the D's to either absolve themselves of liability or apportion the damages between them.

Contribution

If one D ends up paying the entire damage award, the D may seek to be reimbursed or compensated by the other Ds also found to be at fault.

Unforeseeable Plaintiff

If the P was not in the zone of protection, then no duty was owed and therefore the plaintiff was unforeseeable, and therefore, there is no proximate cause. Palsgraf v. LIRR: The plaintiff was standing at the end of the platform. A RR employee helped a man, carrying a wrapped package, get onto the train. The main dropped the package, apparently containing fireworks, and it exploded causing pillars to fall injuring the plaintiff. No breach of duty to P, because there was no alignment between the duty and the breach of duty. The D owed no duty to the P.

Factual Causation

In order for the plaintiff to prove the element of causation, the plaintiff must prove: 1. Factual cause (But-for) AND 2. Legal causation (proximate)

Express Assumption of the Risk

P signs a waiver and that excuses the D's liability Must show: -The risk is within the agreement -It doesn't violate public policy

Proximate Cause:

Proximate cause involves assessing whether the defendant's actions were a direct and foreseeable cause of the plaintiff's harm, considering logic, policy, precedent, and societal notions of fairness. Legal cause, also known as proximate cause, determines if liability should be imposed when the factual cause is established. Proximate cause is a concept that cuts off liability even though there is cause in fact.

Going and Coming Rule:

Rule whereby employers are generally not liable for tortious acts committed by employees while on their way to and from work. Based on several theories -- Employment relationship is suspended from the time the employee leaves the job until they return. --During the commute, employee isn't performing services to the employer. --Rule has been applied to employees who get into car accidents on the way home after drinking alcohol.

Cause in Fact

Showing that the harm occurred because of the defendants actions Rule: A cause is a substantial factor if the accident would not have occured without that cause/conduct/behavior. Negligence is a cause in fact to another if it was a substantial factor in bringing about that harm. (Jury decides) The Def's conduct is a cause of the event if the event would not have occurred but for that conduct

Respondeat Superior/Vicarious Liability

Situations where the actions of one person may be imputed to another person because of a special relationship. Examples: (Master/Servant, Principal/Agent, Employer/Employee). Elements: 1. There must be privity between the two parties (some type of relationship where someone was acting on behalf of someone else ex. employment) 2. D must be acting within the scope of that relationship. Rule: An employer is liable for the torts commited by its employees during the scope of their employment. Respondeat Superior imposes liability whether or not the employer had control of the employee.

If the jurisdiction has comparative negligence AND joint & several liability →

The P can get the full amount from the D, even if the D is not 100% at fault. The risk of an absent D falls on the defendant.

If J's have adopted comparative negligence but ELIMINATE joint & several liability→

The P can only get a proportion of each D's fault share. The risk of an absent D falls on the plaintiff.

Comparitive Negligence

This is an attempt to divide liability between the P and D in proportion to their own negligence. Two Types: -Pure Negligence: P recovers no matter what, in proportion to their own fault. -Modified Negligence: P can only recover if the P's negligence was equal or less than D's negligence

Concurrent Causes

This is when two negligent acts combine to cause one injury Rule: When separate negligent acts combine to produce a single injury, each tortfeasor is liable for the full amount even though neither act alone would have caused the injury. Hill v. Edmonds: The ∆ owned a truck and left it parked in the middle of the road. The π was a passenger in the car that crashed into the truck. The court held that both parties (driver and truck owner) can be held responsible for the same harm.

(Doctrine of Joint and Several Liability)/ Joint Tortfeasors

When more than one party is the proximate cause and the harm is indivisible(can't divide the harm), then each defendant is liable for the entire harm. The plaintiff can collect the entire amount of the judgment from both defendants or from either defendant in any distribution. Rule: When multiple people particpate in illegal activity, they will be held jointly and severally liable for injuries to innocent third parties. --Biercynszi v. Rogers: Illegal drag race on the street, exceeding speed limit, one driver crashed into P and the other race driver did not. Both (defendants/racers) were held liable.

Proof of Causation

Where the negligence of the D greatly increases the chance of an accident, the mere possibility that the accident might have happened absent the negligence is not suffucient to break the chain of cause and effect between the negligence and the injury. Rule: Where cause in fact of an accident cannot be proven, speculation is not sufficient to defeat a mation for summary. (P offered no substantial evidence) Def not held liable. Rule: It is not enough that negligence of one person and injury to another coexisted, but the injury must have been caused by negligence.

Slight Deviation Test

if the employee was only making a slight deviation from the tasks required by employment when the accident occurred, then the employer will be liable.

Proximate cause limits the defendant's _________ because of the ____________ extent of the injury. The defendant should not be responsible for things beyond the defendant's control.

liability; unforeseeable Ryan v. New York Central R.R.: The destruction of the woodshed was within the ordinary result of negligent operation, but the destruction of the P's house was too remote.