Torts 1

Categorization of Damages

Economic (specific) v. Noneconomic (general)

Are social hosts who serve alcohol to a guest who is intoxicated responsible for the harm caused by that guest?

In NJ, yes the social host can be held liable. However, most states do not follow this rule for social hosts.

Intervening cause

The acts of a third person that intervene between defendant's negligent conduct and plaintiff's injury will interrupt the causal link if the conduct is extraordinary, unforeseeable, and independent. It will not interrupt the causal link if it is a normal, foreseeable consequence, flowing naturally from the situation created by the negligent conduct

Collateral Source Rule

Tortfeasors may not benefit from (pay less in damages because of) payments made to plaintiff by sources collateral to the tortfeasors.

Loss of Chance of Survival Doctrine

Under certain circumstances, plaintiff may be able to recover for loss of a chance or reduced chance of recovery even though plaintiff cannot prove that it was more likely than not that defendant's negligent conduct caused the injury.

If you do not find a statute supporting your claim, do you necessarily lose?

You do not necessarily lose.

What is a tort?

a civil wrongdoing; private law allowing a person to seek monetary damages for injuries sustained to them.

At common law in order for contribution to apply,

a defendant must have paid at least their fair share of damages

The rescue doctrine does not eliminate the proximate cause requirements. The plaintiff must still prove that the negligence was ...

a proximate cause of P's injuries

What is causation?

a reasonably close connection between the conduct and the resulting injury

The Reasonably Prudent Person standard

a requirement in all cases to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would in that same circumstance

What is the contribution concept of Joint tortfeasors?

a way that one defendant can sue another defendant to help pay the cost of damages that they owe.

Reasonableness is a ___________ threshold dependent upon the situation.

baseline

The failure to conform to the required standard is a ...

breach of that duty

But-For Test

but for X, would Y have happened?

You (do/do not) have to argue the duty if there is a statute prohibiting the behavior within the facts of your case

do not (Osborne - selling poison not labeled as poison in a drug store - Under Minnesota law, "where a statute...imposes upon any person a specific duty for the protection or benefit of others, if he neglects to perform that duty he is liable to those for whose protection or benefit it was imposed for any injuries of the character which the statute or ordinance was designed to prevent, and which were proximately produced by such neglect.")

The RPP standard is adjusted to account for ______________ disabilities.

Physical (Roberts v. Louisiana - blind man bumped into someone causing injury. Not liable for injury bc he used care of RP-blind-P).

Pure Comparative Fault

Plaintiff can recover even if defendant is only 1% at fault. Amount paid is reduced to equivalent the percentage of damage the defendant is at fault for. KY follows this.

Defendant Bacon was approaching steps to a deck, holding a rifle over his shoulder, when he stumbled and fell, accidentally discharging the rifle. The plaintiff's decedent was struck by the bullet. Plaintiff alleged that the steps were negligently maintained, causing the stumble, and that the combined negligence of Bacon and the companies responsible for the steps' condition caused the injury. Issue: Was trial court correct in ruling that Defendant ranch company could not be liable as a matter of law for plaintiff's injuries where plaintiff did not offer "substantial evidence" that any condition on property of defendants caused Bacon to stumble and fall?

Plaintiff failed to produce evidence from which it could 'reasonably be inferred' that negligent conduct by defendants was the cause in fact of plaintiff's injuries Key Takeaway/Rule: In order to avoid entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff must at least provide information sufficient that a reasonable jury could infer that the allegedly dangerous condition caused the accident. Mere speculation is not enough.

Options for Joint tortfeasors fault

Pure contributory negligence, Pure comparative fault, modified comparative fault

Polemis Case During the unloading of a ship, a plank fell from some temporary staging set up to assist in moving some cargo and struck a spark. The spark set petrol vapors in the hold on fire and the entire ship was destroyed. The court found that the negligent dropping of the plank was the proximate cause of the fire even though the defendants could not have anticipated the exact operation of the harm. Issue: Were defendants liable for damages directly resulting from their negligence even where the damage was not anticipated by defendants?

The negligent conduct (dropping the plank) was the proximate cause of the injury (fire) even though the defendants could not have anticipated (foreseen) the exact operation of the harm (plank's striking something that caused spark).

What is the rescue doctrine?

The original tortfeasor is liable for injury suffered by someone who attempts to rescue another in peril due to the tortfeasor's negligent conduct; a rescuer will be able to recover damages incurred from the parties negligence; must be reasonable to foresee a rescuer being present in the situation.

The Rebuttable Presumption Rule is an excuse available for negligence per se. What is it?

The party whose conduct is being evaluated is permitted to show that they had an excuse for the conduct that violated a statute.

To achieve rescuer status under the rescue doctrine, the plaintiff must demonstrate

(1) D was negligent to the person rescued AND such negligence caused the peril or appearance of peril to the person rescued, (2) peril or appearance of peril was imminent and (3) a RPP would have concluded such peril or appearance of peril was imminent and (4) the rescuer acted with reasonable care in effectuating the rescue.

Under Daubert, to satisfy Federal Rule of Evidence 702 Plaintiffs must demonstrate

(1) that expert testimony reflects' scientific knowledge" and that expert's findings are "derived by the scientific method," and that work product amounts to "good science." (2) that expert testimony is "relevant to the task at hand," i.e., that it "logically advances a material aspect" of plaintiff's case.

For res ipsa to apply, P must prove what 3 elements

(1) there was an accident, (2) the thing or instrumentality which caused the accident was at the time of and prior thereto under the exclusive control and management of the defendant, and (3) that the accident was such that in the ordinary course of events, the defendant using ordinary care, the accident would not have happened.

The Court pointed out four situations in which the collateral source rule is inapplicable.

(1) to rebut plaintiff's testimony that he was compelled by financial necessity to return to work prematurely or forego additional medical care; (2) to show that the plaintiff had attributed his condition to some other cause, such as sickness; (3) to impeach plaintiff's testimony that he had paid his medical expenses himself; (4) to show that the plaintiff actually continued to work instead of being out of work.

To know if an expert testimony is admissible, courts may consider several factors, including

(1) whether theory/technique used by expert is generally accepted in scientific community, (2) whether it's been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) whether it can be and has been tested, and (4) whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable.

Legal cause has two parts:

1) cause in fact ("but for" causation) 2) Proximate or legal cause

What are the two general approaches to proximate cause?

1) hindsight or direct causation 2) foreseeability (tends to be narrower than hindsight/direct causation)

The plaintiff's burdens of proof in proving negligence: 1) burden of _________ 2) burden of coming forward with ____________ ____________ to avoid summary judgement of a directed verdict against them 3) burden of ____________ the trier of fact (jury or judge) to find in his favor

1) pleading 2) enough evidence 3) persuading

What are the two tests for cause in fact?

1. But-For Test (but for X, would Y have happened) 2. Substantial Factor Test (was X a substantial factor in causing Y or would the incident have occurred anyway?)

Payment options for joint tortfeasors

1. Joint and Several Liability 2. Hybrid Joint and Several liability 3. Several liability

What are the 3 possible standards for evaluating medical professional conduct?

1. National Standard 2. Strict Locality 3. Similar community in similar circumstances

Exceptions to Proximate Cause

1. Thin Skull Doctrine 2. Rescue Doctrine

Two questions to ask when examining a statute for negligence per se

1. What type of people was this statute supposed to protect? 2. What kind of injuries was the statute supposed to prevent?

Joinder is permitted when (1) the defendants acted in ___________, (2) when the defendants acted _______________ to cause the _______ harm, and even (3) when the defendants acted _______________ to cause ____________ harms.

1. concert 2. independently; same 3. independently; different

1. Ps can be members of the class and suffer harm against which the statute was intended to protect, but a criminal statute can nonetheless be found inappropriate to import a duty and standard of conduct in tort. Factors to consider: 1. whether the statute clearly defines the ______________ or ____________ conduct. 2. whether applying negligence per se could create _________ __________ _________. 3. whether the statute would impose ruinous liability ________________ to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct 4. whether the injury resulted _________ or _________ from violation of the statute

1. prohibited; required 2. liability without fault 3. disproportionate 4. directly or indirectly

In order to determine whether the standard of the statute can be used to establish the standard of care in a negligence action, the judge must determine what 2 things?

1. that the party seeking to prove the violation is a member of the class the legislature intended to protect AND 2. that the hazard that occurred was one the legislature intended to protect against.

To satisfy due process, punitive damages awards must be evaluated using 3 guideposts established in BMW v. Gore:

1.The reprehensibility of the conduct; 2.The ratio between compensatory and punitive damages (awards greater than double digit ratios are suspect); and 3.Disparity between punitive damages award and the civil/criminal penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.

When evaluating an informed consent claim under the "reasonable patient" standard, which question is used? 1 or 2. 1. whether a reasonable physician would have disclosed the information 2. whether the physician disclosed all material information a reasonable patient would want to know

2. whether the physician disclosed all material information a reasonable patient would want to know

Nominal Damages

A Nominal (small) sum awarded to Plaintiff, to "vindicate rights, make judgment available as a matter of record to prevent Defendant from acquiring prescriptive rights..."

Punitive Damages

Additional sum over and above compensatory damages, to punish defendant, make an example of defendant, and/or to deter defendant and others from engaging in similar tortious conduct.

The Professional Standard of Care

The standard of care to be applied to a professional is that conduct that the ordinary member of the profession would engage in under same or similar circumstances. It is an objective standard that is not modified to comport with the particular training or experience of the individual in the case.

What is the egg shell (thin skull doctrine)?

Defendant is liable for all consequences, whether or not foreseeable, of a physical injury to plaintiff even if another plaintiff may not have suffered as seriously. You take your plaintiff as they are.

Is a defendant liable for unforeseeable damages?

Defendant is not liable for unforeseeable damage caused by defendant's conduct

How did strict locality come to be?

Came about when medical education was not standardized and there was wide variance in skill, knowledge, etc.

What is negligence?

Careless mistakes or inattention that result in injury

What are the two types of Causation?

Causation in Fact (actual) Proximate Causation (legal)

(TRUE or FALSE) Evidence of custom or industry practice may not be used as evidence of what the reasonable person would do under the circumstances.

False. It may be used, but it is not conclusive on that issue (Klein - shower door shattering due to defendant failing to replace with tempered glass that was the industry standard or custom.)

Valuation of damaged property,

Difference between the value of the property before damage and value after damage.

In proving negligence, there are two types of evidence. What are they?

Direct evidence Circumstantial evidence

(TRUE or FALSE) Every injury is a breach of duty

False. Not every injury is a breach of duty. Lubwitz (kid with golf club)

Valuation of physical property is destroyed,

Full replacement value based on fair market value at time of tort.

Why do we have tort law?

Holding people responsible and granting compensation

Valuation of physical harm to property

In general, tied to fair market value of the property at the time of the tort.

What good does negligence per se do for the plaintiff?

It is a shortcut for plaintiffs, they do not have to talk about common law or what a reasonable person would do. Finding a statute and showing that your facts go along with the statute on point only leaving causation and damages left to prove

What is direct evidence?

Indisputable evidence that a breach occurred. (Eyewitnesses, forensics, etc.)

Compensatory Damages

Intended to represent the "closest possible financial equivalent" of the loss/harm suffered by Plaintiff, to make P whole again, to restore P to position P was in before tort occurred.

Does the intentional or criminal act of a third person cut off liability for the defendant's negligent act.?

It may. Whether an act is intentional or merely negligent is normally a question of fact for the jury to determine.

The _________ has the task of determining a reasonable amount of compensation for non-economic losses, like pain and suffering.

Jury

Is contribution available for intentional torts?

No

If someone is under 21 years of age and drinking, can they use the excuse of being drunk?

No that excuse is never accepted, but rather taken as further negligence

Does it matter if a person was acting in good faith?

No. What does matter is what a reasonable person would do.

Compensatory Damages can involve multiple components, and a monetary value must be placed on each type of injury suffered by the plaintiff

Past and future physical and mental pain; future medical expenses; loss of earning capacity; and permanent disability/disfigurement.

Hybrid Joint and Several Liability

Reallocation: if one defendant is judgment proof (can get the judgment but cannot recover $$ - bankrupt, no resources, etc.), a court may reallocate the damages to another defendant.

A person should adhere to what a _______________ _________ __________ would do

Reasonably prudent person

_________ states have passed laws limiting amount of damages recoverable.

Roughly half

Per Diem Argument:

Some jurisdictions permit a per diem argument, under which a specific value is assigned to units of suffering (days, hours, minutes) and multiply that value by the expected duration of suffering.

Strict liability

The legal responsibility for damage or injury even if you are not negligent. Regardless of care taken by the defendant, the injury still constitutes damages and redress.

(TRUE or FALSE) Plaintiffs must be conscious to recover for physical pain.

True

Plaintiff, hurrying at the direction of the conductor, emerged from the bright light of the waiting room and began descending an unlighted staircase with no handrail. At some point, she slipped and fell. In plaintiff's suit against railroad for negligence, defendant railroad argued that causation in fact was not satisfied, claiming that plaintiff might have fallen even if it had been broad daylight and there had been a handrail. Issue: Was mere possibility that accident could have occurred absent defendant's negligence sufficient to break the chain of causation?

Where negligence of defendant greatly multiplies the chances of accident to the plaintiff and is of a character naturally leading to its occurrence, the mere possibility that it might have happened without negligence is insufficient to break causal chain.

Judge Cardozo's opinion on the scope of liability

Would limit liability to persons whose harm is of the general type of harm that made the conduct unreasonable in the first place if those persons were within the zone of that danger. "Negligence in the air will not do." Defendant friendly.

If suicide is a foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence, can the defendant be held liable for the suicide even though suicide is an intentional act?

Yes, the defendant may be held liable, if the evidence shows that the decedent was incapable of resisting an impulse to destroy themselves due to the negligent act.

It was a dark and stormy night when the owner of a tractor truck left it parked without lights in the middle of a road. The truck driver was negligent in leaving his truck without lights in the middle of the road. The car in which plaintiff was a passenger ran into it from the rear. The driver's testimony tended to prove that she was negligent in failing to avoid the obstruction. Issue: Where driver's negligence may have been the immediately preceding cause, was owner of tractor truck also a cause of plaintiff's injuries?

Yes, where "separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury," each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it. Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Three prongs to due process

a. Court says the defendant cannot be punished on a national level within a present case, but only for how the defendant harms the plaintiff in the present case. b. No rigid benchmarks, but the greater disparity between the damages/penalties, the more likely it is to be ruled as excessive. c. Fairness = consistency

What is an injunction?

an order to cease doing something: ex. Chemical company polluting the air and being ordered to cease operations

Satisfaction: in a joint and several liability scheme, a plaintiff can sue ______ ______ _____ defendants, but the claim can only be satisfied once. (no double recovery)

any and all

Professionals (attorneys for example) who meet the standard of care (are/are not) liable for mere errors in judgment that result in a bad result for their clients.

are not

Jurisdictions may have different standards for informed consent: a. Majority - The "reasonable ___________" standard b. Minority - The "reasonable ___________" standard

a. physician (i.e., what a reasonable physician would disclose) b. patient (i.e., what a reasonable patient would want to know.)

In the event of an emergency, how is a person expected to act?

act as a reasonably prudent person would that same emergency situation (i.e. house catching on fire, being told to evacuate a building because of a bomb, etc.)

If a statute exists, it does not give everyone the right to claim breach of that statute. They must be ___________ by the negligence.

affected

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

after, therefore, because of

If plaintiff is found to do something contributorily negligent, it will be weighed ___________ ____ _________ to see how much fault should be put to each party to see how much the plaintiff can recover

against the damage

At common law, if one defendant is released, then ______ defendants are released.

all

Proximate Cause

an action that produced foreseeable consequences without intervention from anyone else.

Motion to dismiss

as a matter of law you do not have a claim

Motion for summary judgement

could a reasonable jury decide based on the summaries of evidence as it stands?

Superseding Cause

cuts off liability to original party because this new causal link overrides the original link.

In a case where both defendants had acted negligently, but only one of them caused plaintiff's injury, the burden of proof on the issue of causation shifts to the ______________.

defendants.

What is gross negligence?

deliberate and reckless disregard for the safety of others

Motion for a directed verdict

direct jury to find in my favor because all the cards are on the table and as a matter of law what the opposing side has put in for evidence cannot win a legal argument.

Most courts (do/do not) many any allowance for the mental illness of the defendant

do not

Several Liability

each person is going to pay for exactly what they are responsible for. KY follows this. 90% at fault, pay 90% of damages.

When separate acts of negligence combine to produce a single injury, who is liable?

each tortfeasor for the full amount even though neither act alone would have caused the injury.

Pure Contributory Negligence

in order for this option to apply, there must be a purely guiltless plaintiff. If a plaintiff is 1% negligent for their own injury, they cannot recover. Policy POV: undercompensates plaintiffs, overcompensates defendants

What is the concept of release within Joint Tortfeasors?

enter into a settlement agreement with other parties

Violation of a statute can constitute both negligence per se (assuming causation and injury are demonstrated) and can apply __________ to plaintiffs as to defendants.

equally. (Herzog - driving a car without lights at nighttime and someone else crashing into your vehicle)

If the plaintiff can show that defendant had _____________ __________ over the instrumentality of harm AND the incident is the sort that does not ____________ occur in the absence of negligent conduct, the fact finder may conclude that defendant was negligent under which doctrine

exclusive control ordinarily res ipsa loquitur

Professional negligence must be established __________ _______________ as to whether the alleged negligence fell below the standard of care for an ordinary member of the profession unless it is something within the knowledge and experience of lay jurors.

expert testimony

Modern approach: does not release all defendants if one defendant is released, however a plaintiff must ....

expressly reserve the right to continue their claims against other defendants.

Whether the duty was breached is a question of _______

fact (jury)

What are the problems with calculating economic damages vs non-economic damages

harder to quantify, harder to determine what constitutes payment for non-economic

2 ideas when thinking about joint tortfeasors

how we divide fault. how we divide payment

Joint and Several Liability

idea that if more than one person is the cause of the plaintiff's harm and that harm is indivisible (damages not dividable), each defendant is responsible for the entire harm. Right to "join" all defendant's in a suit. Can sue everyone or just one tortfeasor

Modified Comparative Fault

idea that if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant, the plaintiff cannot recover. (substantially at fault). 50% Bar Rule: if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault, they cannot recover 51% Bar Rule: if the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, they cannot recover

Describe the foreseeability test for proximate cause

idea that reasonable people should only be liable for foreseeable consequences (Cardozo) - harder to establish

Maximum Recovery Rule

if the amount awarded exceeds the maximum amount set, damages will be deemed excessive.

Reduced life expectancy

in general, no recovery permitted for this as distinguished from loss of earnings

What is circumstantial evidence?

indirect evidence that can be used to imply a fact, but does not directly prove it. Requires a fact-finder to draw an inference based on the evidence that has been produced.

Plaintiff's suicide cuts off liability unless

it is not intentional because it is a product of an irresistible impulse brought about by organic brain damage caused by the defendant.

An award of damages will be deemed excessive if it falls outside the range of fair and reasonable compensation or results from passion or prejudice, or if it is so large that it shocks the ____________ _____________.

judicial conscience.

Judgment notwithstanding the verdict

jury returns verdict and loser says jury got it completely wrong based on the evidence that no reasonable jury could reach that verdict and asks for a judgment in their favor instead

Primary issue in a medical battery claim case is whether the patient ________ ___ and ______________ the procedure

knew of; authorized

Whether a duty is owed is a question of _______

law (court)

Describe the direct/hindsight test for proximate cause

liable for direct harms from negligence, regardless of whether it was foreseeable (Andrews)

A State Legislature (may/may not) eliminate or modify common law causes of action without violating the Constitution.

may

Economic losses include

medical expenses, lost wages (calculated based on current employment), loss or impairment of future earning capacity

Plaintiffs must establish via expert testimony that it is ________ __________ ________ _______ that [here] the drug caused their injuries.

more likely than not

It is not enough for plaintiff to prove that the negligent conduct might have caused the harm. Plaintiff must prove that the negligent conduct ...

more likely than not was the cause of the harm

What is the threshold percentage under hybrid joint and several liability?

must be a certain threshold percentage at fault in order to be held jointly and severally liable

The standard of care for board certified physicians, hospitals, medical laboratories, and other health care providers that are nationally certified is a __________ _______________.

national standard.

Plaintiff will have to show that the injuries were the _________ and _______ consequence of the proximate cause, without which the injuries would not have occurred.

natural direct

Where D is responsible for creating the dangerous condition (including through its operating method), P (does need to/need not) demonstrate either actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition that caused P's injury.

need not

Comparative Fault focuses on the ___________ and _________ and applies to joint and several liability (most states enforce pure several liability)

plaintiff defendant

What is the strict locality standard?

practitioner in good standing in the local community in which the practitioner practices

Information is material if it would be likely to affect the ___________ __________.

patient's decision.

What is the Firefighter Rule?

personnel in emergency management are not able to recover damages under rescue doctrine because it is understood that they may be injured in their line of work regardless.

Contributory Fault focuses on the ___________ and their contribution to their own injury.

plaintiff

The __________ retains the burden of proof when claiming that a second accident aggravated previous injuries sustained in an original accident.

plaintiff

When the statute was intended as a public safety measure, violation of the statute is ________ ________ evidence of negligence (Illinois Law - Yellow Cab).

prima facie

P has the burden of _____________ __________ that the dangerous condition existed for at least a sufficient time to support a finding that D had constructive notice of the hazardous condition.

producing evidence

Choosing to cut off liability as a matter of ________ _______/______ _________ even when there is actual and proximate cause.

public policy/public interest

In such maritime cases, an upper limit of 1:1 ___________ to ___________ is fair in view of the purposes of punitive damages (deterrence and measured retribution, given the need to protect against variability and unpredictable (and unnecessary) awards of punitive damages.)

punitive compensatory

D (or the person whose conduct is being evaluated) is deemed to have the knowledge that the ordinary, _____________ _________ would have, not the knowledge the person actually has.

reasonable person (Delair case - should have known the tire was faulty and needed to be replaced)

Children are expected to act as ...

reasonably as another child of the same age, intelligence and experience would act in the same situation

When children are engaging in inherently dangerous activities that only an adult (if anyone) should be engaging in (driving a snowmobile), the child will be held to the standard of a _______________ ____________ __________ in the same situation.

reasonably prudent adult

doctrine in tort law saying that a court can infer negligence from the nature of the accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how the defendant behaved

res ipsa loquitur

Unforeseen mental illness is set to the (same/different) standard as sudden or unforeseen physical injury/disability

same

Indemnification

shifts liability to someone else.

The standard imposed by a statute may be used as a "__________" to demonstrate what a reasonable person would do.

shortcut

To be a "cause in fact" of the accident, the negligence in question need not be the sole cause of harm; rather, it must be at least a __________________ ___________ in bringing about the harm.

substantial factor

When two causes (fires) combine to cause damage and either alone would have caused the damage, both sources are liable (assuming both are negligent) as long as each was a ________________ _____________ in causing the damage.

substantial factor

Which standard should apply in determining whether D was grossly negligent, "person of ordinary prudence" or whether D acted "bona fide to the best of his judgment." (good faith)

the "ordinary prudence" standard applies (Menlove - burning hayrick)

What are damages?

the actual loss of the nonbreaching party caused by the breach. How can the injured party be made whole again?

If it is clear that the reasonable man would have realized or foreseen and prevented the risk, then it must follow that ...

the appellant is liable in damages.

Negligence is measured based on the standard of ...

the reasonably prudent person

Which doctrine allows an injured rescuer to sue the party which caused the danger requiring the rescue in the first place?

the rescue doctrine

Res Ipsa Loquitor

the thing speaks for itself

Valuation of deprivation of use,

the value of the use during the time plaintiff was deprived of use. Exceptions to this rule for items where fair market value does not reflect "true" value to owner, e.g. sentimental items, household goods such as clothing, furniture, etc.

An intervening act may not serve as a superseding cause, and relieve an actor of responsibility, where the risk of the intervening act occurring is ...

the very same risk which renders the actor negligent.

When must a trial court apply to the collateral source rule?

to exclude evidence of payments received by an injured party from sources collateral to the wrongdoer. This rule applies unless the evidence of the benefits from the collateral source is relevant for a purpose other than the mitigation of damages.

(TRUE or FALSE) A sudden mental incapacity equivalent in its effect to such physical causes as a sudden heart attack, epileptic seizure, stroke, or fainting should be treated alike and not under the general rule of insanity.

true

(TRUE or FALSE) Most jurisdictions are moving away from joint and several liability.

true

What is an example of indivisible damages?

two people plotting to kill another, pain and suffering cases, etc

To satisfy proximate cause requirement, court must find that the _______ ____ ________ that occurred was reasonably foreseeable, not just that it was reasonably foreseeable that some damage would occur.

type of damage

What is negligence per se?

violation of a statute or regulation that causes harm to the victim.

Substantial Factor test

was X a substantial factor in causing Y or would the incident have occurred anyway?

Concurrent causes

where separate acts of negligence combine to directly produce a single injury, each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.

Judge Andrews opinion on the scope of liability

would extend liability to all persons whose harm is from an unbroken, natural sequence of events started by defendant's act, without the intervention of external forces that were not then in active operation. Plaintiff friendly.