Intervening and Superseding Causes

1
Intervening and Superseding Causes

• Question When should some action between the
  time of defendants wrongful act and plaintiffs
  injury be said to break the chain of causation
  and thereby relieve the defendant from liability
  to the plaintiff?
• Answer Usually defendant is relieved of
  liability when intervening cause is unforeseeable
  and sufficiently important.

2
Causal chains

• City of Lincoln
•  Defendant negligently collides with plaintiffs
  vessel, causing loss of navigating equipment gt
• plaintiffs captain attempts to bring ship to
  port gt
• plaintiffs ship suffers damages.

3
Tuttle
Defendants train jumped the tracks negligently
and headed toward plaintiff --gt plaintiff
jumped out of the way to get to safety --gt
plaintiff injured her knee.
4
Mauney

• Defendants delivery truck on fire and likely to
  explode gt
• neighbors warn plaintiff -gt
• plaintiff trips over chair in her own place of
  business in an effort to escape.
• Is this a contributory negligence case in
  disguise?

5
Security guard hypos

• Suppose a security guard at a shopping mall falls
  asleep on the job. A criminal comes to the
  shopping mall at night, and attacks a customer as
  he is getting into his car.
• Separately, an arsonist lights a gasoline truck
  on fire in the mall parking lot, causing a fire
  that injures a second customer.

6
Intervening criminal activity under the
Restatement

• Restatement (Second) section 448 and 449
• Intervening criminal acts break the chain of
  causation unless the actor at the time of his
  negligent conduct realized or should have
  realized the likelihood that such a situation
  might be created, and that a third person might
  avail himself of the opportunity to commit such a
  tort or crime.

7
California Cases

• Contrast Bigbee (page 448) with Ann M. case (to
  be discussed next week)
• What does language of foreseeability mask?

8
Two final hypos

• D injures P in an auto accident. P is taken to
  the hospital, where a doctor negligently operates
  on her, causing her injuries to be much more
  severe than had a competent doctor operated.
  Result?

9
Hypo 2(a)

• A gasoline truck owned by D oil company negligent
  spills gasoline in the street. A, who is unaware
  of the spilled gasoline, negligently tosses away
  a match after lighting a cigarette. The match
  ignites the gasoline, severely burning P who is
  on an errand. Is D liable?

10
Hypo 2(b)

• Same facts, except A deliberately throws the
  match in a desire to injure P.

11
Pure economic loss rule

• In the absence of property damage or personal
  injury, plaintiff cannot recover for financial
  losses.

12
Exception

• If the only kind of injury a defendant can
  inflict upon a plaintiff is financial losses, the
  economic harm rule does not apply.

13
Emotional distress damages

• Old rule required that the damages be parasitic
  to other damage, usually resulting from physical
  impact
• Fear of false claims and difficulty of measuring
  damages
• Transitional rule required plaintiff to be in the
  zone of physical danger to recover

14
Negligent infliction modern rule

• Direct victims may recover for negligent
  infliction of emotional distress that is
  sufficiently foreseeable. (Sometimes called
  separate tort but treat it as negligence where
  injury is emotional distress)
• Still some important policy limits fear of AIDS,
  cancer cases generally require to recover that
  plaintiff be more likely than not to get the
  disease.

15
NIED Bystander recovery

• Dillon test
• (1) plaintiff is located near the scene of the
  accident rather than a distance from it
• (2) the shock results from the direct emotional
  impact upon plaintiff from the sensory and
  contemporaneous observation of the accident, as
  contrasted with learning of the accident from
  others after its occurrence.
• (3) whether plaintiff and the victim were closely
  related, as opposed to the absence of a
  relationship or a distant relationship.

16
When is it a bystander case and when a direct
victim?

• Why is Molien a direct victim case?
• Court says it depends upon whether defendant
  assumed a direct duty to plaintiff. This is a
  policy determination.

17
Contrast IIED bystander recovery
18

• Intentional infliction tortious conduct
• (1) Defendant engages in extreme and outrageous
  conduct
• (2) And intentionally (or recklessly) causes
• (3) severe emotional distress to the plaintiff

19

• Bystander additions
• If the tort if directed to a third person, add
• (4) by conduct directed to a member of
  plaintiffs immediate family who is present at
  the time or
• (5) to anyone else present, if such distress
  results in bodily harm.