Anegligenceactchangestheworldinunpredictableways,andcanhaveanynumberof
endlesseffects.ThereareavarietyofapproachestoProximateCause,buteveryoneagreesthat
theremustbeapointatwhichendlesscausalupshotsofafaultyactarenolongertheactors
responsibility;theremustbesomelimitstoliabilityfortheeffectsofnegligentacts.Thetopicof
howtodrawthoselimitsisknownasproximatecause.
Letmeintroducethetopicbyabriefremark.Therearetwoschools,twoapproachesto
proximatecause:
Onewecancallthepolicyapproach:Tosaythatthereisafailureofproximatecause
means,thatforsomeindependentreason(callitapolicyreason),wearegoingtocutthe
causalchainoffatsomepointandsaythatwhileDsnegligenceisabutforcauseof
injury,itsnotproximateenough.Weregoingtodrawalinethroughthecausalchain,
separatingapartwhichisproximateandapartthatistooremote(orsometimesthisis
expressedasapartthatisdirectenoughandapartthatistooindirect).Onwhatbasisis
thislinethroughcausalchaindrawn?Well,theresreallynotmuchtosayinadvance
aboutthispolicyapproach.ButsomeofthethingsthecasesmentionisthefeelingtheP
deservescompensation,orthefactthattheDisgoodspreaderoftheloses,orjusta
feelingthatcausalchainrunningfromnegligencetoinjuryisjusttooindirect.Thisisjust
someofthevocabularythatyouwillseeusedincaseswhichfollowthisapproach.
Thesecondapproachtakesproximatecausetohavecontentevenwithoutsuchpolicy
considerationslimitingrecovery.Onthisapproach,tosaythatproximatecausefailsis
tosay:whatmadetheD'sconductwrongfulwasnottheriskwhichmaterializedinto
injurytothisP.Thisapproachisaskingadifferentquestionthanthequestionofwhere
todrawalinethroughthecausalsequence.Itisaskingandtryingtoanswerthequestion:
IswhathappenedtotheplaintiffpartofanaccountofwhatmadetheDsconduct
wrongful?Therestatementcallsthisscopeofrisk.ProximatecausefailswhenthePs
injuryisoutsidethescopeoftheriskofDsnegligence.
Letmeillustratethetwoapproacheswithanexamplewhichcomesfromthedissentingopinion
inthecaseofPalsgrafvs.LongIslandRailroad.
Anursemaiddropsababysheisholdingafterhearingtheimpactonthestreetbelowcausedby
anegligentlyspeedingdriver.
Firstquestion:Couldtheplaintiffprovecausation,inthesensewevebeenstudyingit,
so,butforcausation?
o Ofcourse.Justimagineitwasanoiselargeenoughtostartleanyone
Secondquestion:isthereproximatecausationhere?
Letsapplythetwoapproachesaboveonthisquestion.
Onthefirstapproach:oncenegligenceandcauseinfactareestablished,weneedtoask
whetherthereisapolicyreasonforlimitingrecovery.Proximatecauseisjustan
opportunityforthejudgetocomeinandactasabrakeonliability.Thejudgejustask
himself:doIthinkrecoverywouldbeagoodideahere?
Thesecondapproachtoproximatecauseasksadifferentquestion:Istheriskofwhat
happenedtothePgettingdroppedbyhisnursemaidisthattheriskwhatmakesthe
Dsconductwrongful?Toundertakethisanalysisweneedtostartwiththealleged
breachspeedingincar.Nextweneedtoask:whatrisksmakespeedinganegligentact
ifitisone?Whatrisksmakesspeedingwrongful?Plausibleanswer:theforeseeablerisk
ofinjurytootherdriversorpedestriansthroughimpact/failuretostop.Havewe
mentionedtheprospectthatababyinanapartmentbuildingabovemightgetdropped?
Nosonoproximatecausehere.Proximateproblemsonthisapproachhavetodowith
analysisofscopeofriskaboutanyriskwecanidentifyitsscopebyasking:riskto
whom(plaintiffclass),ofwhat(whattypeofinjury),andinwhatmanner?(youllnote
thosearethechaptersubheadings).
Nowconsiderthefollowing:SupposeDsdrivingleadstoPsdeathbecausePwasa
hemophiliac.Ifmostvictimswouldhavesufferedonlyminorbruisingandbleeding,wouldDbe
liableforwrongfuldeathdamage?
Yes.Thisisknownasthethinskullrule,ortheeggshellplaintiffrule,anditisoften
summarizedbysayingthattheDmusttakehis/hervictimashe/shefindshim/her.
o Butsuchextensiveharmwasntforeseeabledoesntthismakeadifference?
No,thatsthepoint.Ineffect,theThinskullruleisaruletakingextent
ofinjuryproblemsoutofanyproximatecauselimitations.Ifitsjustan
extentofinjuryproblemriskof
howmuch(NOToftype,ormannerof
occurrence)thentherearenoproximatecauselimits,noquestiontoask
aboutdirectnessorforeseeability,etc.Therulekicksinwhenwhatis
unusualorunforeseeableabouttheinjuryisjusttheextentofdamages.
Anotherexample.Pisafamousviolinist.Hegetshitbyacarandhurtshishand.Insteadof
stiffnessinhishand(whichiswhatmostpeoplewouldhavesufferedinthistypeofaccident),his
careerisruined.
Bennv.Thomas
Firstofall,whatisunusualabouttheinjurythatoccurred?
o Pdiedofheartattack6daysfollowingvehicleaccidentcausedbyDsnegligence.
Whatsortofinjurywouldthisaccidenthavebeenexpectedtocauseinnormalperson,
onewithoutheartdisease?
o Wearetoldthatitprobablywouldhavecausedonlyabruisedchestandfractured
ankle.
Whyisntthisjustaneasycaseunderthethinskullrule,justliketheviolinist?
o Note1inthecasebookgivesyouahint:Doquestionsofcauseinfactexistinthis
case?IfyouwerearguingforD,howwouldyouarguethattheydo?
Whatiserrorallegedonappeal?
o Well,trialjudgerefusedtogiveeggshellplaintiffinstructions.
Now,Dobjected,asyouknow,tojuryinstructionscontainingthatdoctrine.Why?
o Dfeltcauseinfacthadnotbeenestablished.Afterall,supposeDcouldprovethat
Psheartwassoweakthathecouldpossiblynothavelivedmuchlongeranyway.
Wouldthatreallynotberelevant?
Thisillustratesanimportantpointabouttheeggshellplaintiffrule:thatdoctrine
presupposesthatPhasbeentortiouslywronged;TheEPRisreallyjustarecoveryrule,a
damagerule,makingPwhole;butinThomasthereisafactualcausationissue:Itsnot
clearthatDcausedtheheartattack,inthesensethatbutforDsnegligence,Pwouldnot
havesufferedaheartattack.TheinstructionsPwanted:thatDisliableforinjuresevenif
greaterthanmighthavebeenexperiencedbynormalperson.Thinskulldoctrine.
Whatjuryinstructionsweregiven?
o lcausation.Evidentlytrialjudgeworriedaboutfactualcausationaspectandso
wasntwillingtogivethejurythethinskullinstruction.
NowhowdoesthesupremecourtofIowarule?
o Theyrulethatitserroneousnottoallowthethinskulldoctrineinstructions.
ButdoesthismeanitbecomesirrelevantifDcanshowthatPwaslikelytosufferaheart
attackanyway?
o No.Theappellatecourtsrulingmeansthatthisevidencehastocomeinanother
way,asevidencethatwouldmitigatedamages.ItsnotthatDwouldntbeliable
forprecipitatingaheartattack,buthewouldonlybeliablefordeathuptoperiod
whenPcouldhavebeenexpectedtodieanyway.
Averysimilarcase:Steinhauser,note2predispositiontoschizophrenia.Courtheldthatthethin
skullruleshouldhavebeengiven:Pcanrecoverforschizophreniaifjuryconcludesthiswas
precipitatedbyaccident;butDisentitledtoexplorethepossibilitythatPwouldhavedeveloped
schizophreniaanyway,aspartofthedamagesinquiry.
LetmeSummarizethetakehomepoints:somelatentconditioncasesareeasilyhandledunder
thinskull.Inothercases,youvegottobeonthelookoutforamorecomplicatedproblem,
whichisnotjustthatPhasthinskullbutthatDmaynothavebeencauseinfactofinjury.So
thatatmostDprecipitatedtheinjury,butPwouldhavesufferedinjuryatsomepointanyway.In
BennvThomasweseeawayofhandingthatworryaboutfactualcausation:Pgetsthethinskull
instruction,butPwouldhavebrokendownatsomelaterpoint,andDcanexplorethisin
mitigationofdamages.
Letslookatavariationontheunexpectedextentproblem:Theextraordinaryharmisduenotto
athinskulledcondition,buttoapostaccidentsecondaryinjuryeitherbyPsownactionorthe
actionofsomeoneelse.Thisvariationshowsupofteninproviderofmedicalserviceswhose
presenceisnecessitatedbyDsnegligentconduct.Astandardruleistoallowrecoverforaddon
injuryduetomedicalservices.ButwhataboutotheraddoninjuriesthatarePsownaction,like
suicide?CanPrecoveragainstDfortheaddedharmresultingfromthesecondaryincident?
Thenotesfocusonthisproblem.Courtshaveallowedrecoveryforsuicide,asNote5tellsyou,
underdifferentformulas:irresistibleimpulse,directenough,etc.OrnotetheStaffordcase:p.
398.
Couldideasofscopeofriskberelevanthere?(Murky:moreimmediateanddirectthebetter.)
Butletsconsideradifferentaddoninjury;lookatproblemsinnote7.
SaythattheP,injuredbyDsnegligence,dieswhenambulancedrivertransportinghimtoa
hospitalsufferedaheartattackandswervedintoatree.Innote7,page399Pridhamallowed
recoveryinthissituation.Isthatright?Toseethestructureoftheproblem,considersome
variations:
1. Speedingambulancedriverhasaheartattack,getsinanaccident(Pridham)and
assumeheartattackwasduetoemergencynatureofsituation.
2. Nonspeedingambulance,normaltraffic,getsinaccident.
3. PwhoisinjuredbyDsnegligencehasamedicalappointmentnextweek,transportation
isuptoP,takesacab, cab gets in an accident.
WhichisstrongestcaseforDsliabilityforaddonharm:(1)speedingambulance(strongest);(3)
isweakest.Alinemustbedrawn.Theremustbeanendtoonesresponsibilitytoanotherfor
ordinarycarelessbehavior.Atsomepoint,theremustberecognitionthatPhasreturnedtothe
ordinarycourseoflife,eventhoughinasense,Dhasalteredthatpathpermanently.
Onepossibletest,whichseemstofitthecaselawratherwellwouldbethis:hasDexposedPto
riskgreaterthanordinaryeverydaybackgroundrisks?
ThePridhamcasesaysPcanrecoverifambulancetripwasanecessarystepinsecuringmedical
services.Butunderthisproposedtest,Pridhamisarguablywronglydecidedunlessthe
ambulancewasspeedingandthatiswhythesecondaryinjuryoccurred.Afterall,acabnext
week,isanecessarystep,butitcantbesaidthatDwhocausesaPtoneedacabrideto
hospitalhasexposePtosomespecialriskPwouldntordinarilybeexposedto.
Asafurtherexampletoplaywith,youcouldconsiderthequestionsinnote8,p.399Wagner.
Wevebeentalkingabouttwoideas:typeofharm,andextentofharm.Thinskullrulecovers
extentofharm.
Thesenextcasesintroduceanotherproximatecausescenario:thesituationinwhicharguablythe
typeofharmsufferedisdifferentformwhatmighthavebeenexpected.
InPolemis,forexample,whathappened?Onemighthaveexpectedwhattypeof
damage?
o damagetotheholdortotheobjectswithinitfromthefallingoftheplank;instead
afiredestroystheship.
InWagonMoundwhathappened?
o onemighthaveexpectedfoulingofthedockfromthespilledoil;instead,thereis
againan"unforeseeable"firethatdestroysthewharf.(Evidenceofits
unforeseeabilityisP'shimselfwronglyallegingthatwhatwasspilledmusthave
beenpetrolnotfurnaceoil,sincefurnaceoildoesnotcatchfireonwater.)
WhyarethePsproblemsinthisnotcoveredbythinskullrule?
o Fallofplank/spillageofoilcouldntbeexpectedtocausethattypeofinjury,so
itsnotaboutextentofinjury.
WhatdoesPolemishavetosayaboutDsliabilityforunexpectedtypeofharmthatoccurred,the
burningoftheship?
Polemisnotestwoviewsaboutreasonableexpectationorforeseeability:
o Reasonablyexpectedconsequencesarewhatyoulooktoindeterminingwhether
actwasanegligentbreachofduty(orcanbeconsiderednegligent)i.e.,didthe
riskofwhichmakesactnegligentmaterializeintoinjury?Butonceyouanswer
questionofwhetheractwasnegligent,abreachofdutyofreasonablecare,D
liableforalldamages,aslongastheyflowdirectlyfromDsact.
o Reasonablyexpectedconsequences(thatinvirtueofwhichwouldhavebeen
negligenttoactasDdid)ispartofbreachanalysisbutalsothelimitofliability
fordamageswhentheresanunforeseeabletimeofinjury.
Polemisadoptswhichview?Thefirstview:itholdsthatDisresponsibleforall"direct
consequences"ofitsnegligence,butreasonableexpectationsarerelevanttodetermining
whethernegligentinthefirstplace.Sothisviewcontemplatesatwostageoperation:
First:YoulookatwhatoccurredanddeterminewhetherDwasnegligent(foreseeability
ofthetypeharmmightberelevanthere,sinceoftenafactorindeterminingbreach).
Second:youaskwhatdamageitemsarenotadirectconsequenceofthatnegligence.
SoPolemisallowsrecoveryforalldirectharmsrequiresajudgmentaboutthiswhereasthe
significanceofWagonMoundisthatitrejectsthisanalysis.Itthenadoptstheforeseeability
principle(secondapproach)asawayofsayingthattheinjurywhichmaterializesisnotwithin
theambit/scopeoftheriskthatmadetheD'conductwrongful.
Whypreferforeseeability,astheWagonMoundcourtdoes?
ConsiderasentencefromWM:"For,ifsomelimitationmustbeimposeduponthe
consequences
Keyideaisthatthereisnosuchthingaswrongdoingintheair.Justasbeforecausationofinjury
hasnolegalsignificanceifitisnotthematerializationofanunreasonablerisk(onereasonable
personwouldhaveforeseenandtakenprecautionsagainst)sonowproximatecausecasessays
thatwrongdoing,takinganunreasonablerisk,hasnolegalsignificanceifthatriskdoesn't
materializeintodamagetotheP.
Picture:allactioncreatesrisk:Donlyliableforwrongful(unreasonable)risks.
