Now: Back to Hindsight

1
Now Back to Hindsight
2
Missouri

• The test is not whether a reasonably prudent
  person would have foreseen the particular injury
  but whether, after the occurrences, the injury
  appears to be the reasonable and probable
  consequence of the act or omission of the
  defendant
• Most resemble Cardozo or Andrews?

3
Missouri

• The test is not whether a reasonably prudent
  person would have foreseen the particular injury
  but whether, after the occurrences, the injury
  appears to be the reasonable and probable
  consequence of the act or omission of the
  defendant
• Thus, Andrewsclosest (hindsight)

4
Missouri

• Not without ambiguity!
• The test is not whether a reasonably prudent
  person would have foreseen the particular injury
  but whether, after the occurrences, the injury
  appears to be the reasonable and probable
  consequence of the act or omission of the
  defendant

5
Restatement 2d

• P? F (Palgraf)
• Harm? H
• IC? H

6
Petition of Kinsman Transit Co(338 note)

• Facts?
• Foreseeable?
• Liable anyway?
• Any limit on direct liability?

7
The English Experience

• Which approach used in Polemis (340)?
• Wagon Mound I?
• Wagon Mound II?

8
Next Damages