Torts: Negligence and Causation Flashcards

A driver, while negligently operating his vehicle, collides with a utility pole. The collision causes a power outage in a nearby hospital. The hospital's backup generator fails to start, and a patient on life support dies. The patient's family sues the driver for wrongful death. The driver's best defense against the negligence claim is that his conduct was not the:

Answer: Proximate cause of the patient's death.

The correct answer is that the driver's conduct was not the proximate cause of the patient's death. Proximate cause, or legal cause, deals with the foreseeability of the harm. While the driver's negligence was the actual cause (but-for his negligence, the death would not have occurred), it is arguable that the death of a hospital patient due to a generator failure was not a foreseeable consequence of a car accident. The failure of the backup generator could be considered a superseding intervening cause, breaking the chain of causation.

A plaintiff was injured when a piano, being lifted by a crane to a fifth-floor apartment, fell and struck her. The plaintiff has no direct evidence of what specific act the crane operator performed negligently. Which of the following legal doctrines would be most helpful to the plaintiff in establishing the operator's breach of duty?

Answer: Res ipsa loquitur

Res ipsa loquitur, which means 'the thing speaks for itself,' is the most helpful doctrine here. It applies when: (1) the event is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the instrumentality causing the injury was in the defendant's exclusive control; and (3) the injury was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. A piano falling from a crane is a classic example where this doctrine would apply to create an inference of negligence.

In a negligence action, the 'but-for' test is used to determine which of the following elements?

Answer: Actual cause

The 'but-for' test is the standard for determining actual cause, also known as cause-in-fact. The test asks: 'But for the defendant's negligent act, would the plaintiff's injury have occurred?' If the answer is no, then the defendant's act is an actual cause of the injury.

Driver A negligently runs a red light, striking a truck carrying dynamite. The truck explodes, and the resulting concussion shatters a window in a building a block away, injuring a person inside. Under the majority (Cardozo) view expressed in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., why might the driver not be liable for the person's injuries?

Answer: The person was not a foreseeable plaintiff.

The majority view in Palsgraf, articulated by Judge Cardozo, holds that a defendant owes a duty of care only to foreseeable plaintiffs within the 'zone of danger.' In this scenario, it is highly arguable that a person inside a building a block away was not a foreseeable plaintiff to a driver running a red light. The harm was too remote and outside the scope of the risk created by the driver's negligence.

A construction company leaves a deep, unmarked trench in a residential neighborhood. That night, an unexpected and severe earthquake causes a man walking nearby to lose his balance and fall into the trench, sustaining serious injuries. The man sues the construction company for negligence. Which of the following is the company's strongest argument against liability?

Answer: The earthquake was a superseding cause that cuts off liability.

The company's strongest argument is that the severe and unforeseeable earthquake was a superseding cause. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable, intervening event that breaks the chain of proximate causation between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury. While the company was negligent in leaving the trench unmarked, the unforeseeable act of nature could be deemed the legal cause of the specific injury, absolving the company of liability.

Two friends, Cain and Abel, are simultaneously and independently hunting in a forest. Both negligently fire their shotguns in the direction of a hiker. The hiker is struck by a single pellet and loses an eye, but it is impossible to determine which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury. The hiker sues both Cain and Abel. What is the likely outcome?

Answer: The court will apply the doctrine of alternative liability, shifting the burden of proof to Cain and Abel.

This scenario is a classic example of alternative liability, established in the case of Summers v. Tice. When two or more defendants breach a duty of care, but it is uncertain which one caused the plaintiff's single, indivisible injury, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants. Each defendant must prove that their negligence was not the actual cause of the injury. If they cannot, they will be held jointly and severally liable.