Tort of Negligence - Superseding Cause and Affirmative Duties

Good Samaritan Statute

if someone tries to save you from an emergency, and ends up hurting you in the process, you can't sue them. (present in almost all state statutes)

Clark v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Powder Co.

Boy playing with powder glycerine. Mom told him to get rid of it, so he buried it. It stayed buried for 2 years, until discovered by PT's son. It exploded. DF liable because mischief was inherent in the glycerin all along. An accident was likely if it was left out of the custody of someone skilled in its use.

Superseding Cause and Liability for Subsequent Malpractice

Blackletter law: Ordinary medical malpractice committed in the course of treating injuries created by the negligence of a DF is deemed a foreseeable consequence of that negligence, and not deemed a superseding cause. (RS(3) on Torts, § 35)

Pollard v. Oklahoma City Ry. Co.

Blasting power left out by a worker, found and collected by a boy, even after his parents told him to stop. Boy kept the powder, and when playing with Pollard, it exploded and injured Pollard. Railway company not liable. 1st wrong was so remote that it became independent. The injury was not the natural or probably consequence of the original wrong.

Bases for Liability of Remote Actor (3)

The remote actor can be held liable if: •There is a basis for attributing the immediate injurer's misconduct to the remote actor; •The remote actor's conduct was already tortious as to the victim irrespective of the prospect of wrongful conduct by anyone else (the case of two successive careless drivers); and/or... •The remote actor's conduct was only wrongful in creating a risk of intervening wrongdoing by another, but the actor owed person such as the victim an affirmative duty to take steps to protect her against criminal misconduct by 3rd parties. If none of these conditions are present, the remote wrongdoer is spared liability, because only the immediate injurer can be deemed responsible for having injured PT. (This is the case in Arcadian Corp.)

Port Authority of NY & NJ v. Arcadian Corp. (3d Cir. 1999)

In a case stemming from a terrorist detonation of an explosive device under the World Trade Center on 02/26/93, plaintiff owners sued defendant manufacturers of fertilizer products on theories of negligence and products liability, based on the terrorists' alleged use of defendants' fertilizer products in construction of the explosive device. Conclusion: DF manufacturers had no (affirmative) duty to prevent terrorist purchasers of their materials, which were not in and of themselves dangerous, from incorporating the materials into another part that was dangerous; alternatively, terrorists' actions were superseding and intervening events, such that proximate cause was not established. *Focus here is on the nature of the remote wrongdoer's wrong and the charge that their wrongdoing was careless with respect to the nefarious use by another actor. The immediate actor's conduct was wrongful toward PT irrespective of the contribution of another wrongdoer. Rule: A manufacturer of a component that is adulterated for criminal purposes has no affirmative duty to take care to prevent injuries caused by the adulterated end product where the component itself was not defective or unreasonably dangerous and where the component's adulteration was not reasonably foreseeable.

Intervening Wrongdoing:

Superseding Cause as a Special Case of Proximate Cause

Superseding cause -definition -elements (2)

Superseding cause is considered when the carelessness of one actor ("remote actor") causes harm to a victim only because of the subsequent intervention of another wrongdoer ("the immediate injurer"). Responsibility of the remote actor is cut off here, even though the remote actor's carelessness functioned as an actual cause of the victim's injury. The intervening conduct must be wrongful. RS(2) typically says if it is foreseeable, then it is not a superseding cause. ELEMENTS: 1. Wrongdoers act independently 2. Wrongs commited in sequence, with 2nd act a more direct infliction of injury on PT. Superseding cause will sometimes preclude the 1st wrongdoer from liability.