Part 2- Crimes and Torts, Chapter 7: Negligence and Strict Liability, Doc 7

Summary of Key Tort Concepts: Proximate Cause, Intervening Cause, and Defenses in Negligence This overview explores tort concepts like proximate cause, intervening cause, and various defenses in negligence cases, showing how courts establish liability based on foreseeability and manage defenses like contributory and comparative negligence. 1. Proximate Cause and Duty of Care • • Proximate Cause: Courts restrict liability to injuries that are foreseeable or are the "natural and probable" outcomes of a defendant's actions. For example, if an action logically leads to harm (like a car hitting a pedestrian due to speeding), proximate cause is clear. In cases where harm is remote or unusual, courts are less likely to find proximate cause. Scope of Foreseeable Risk: Courts often define duty as a function of foreseeability. For instance, a duty may exist to prevent foreseeable risks, but liability is limited if a harm's occurrence was unforeseeable at the time of the action. In Stahlecker v. Ford Motor Co., Ford and Firestone’s alleged negligence in providing defective tires resulted in Amy Stahlecker’s car becoming stranded, leading to her assault and murder. Although Ford conceded that, "but for" the tire failure, Amy would not have been in a vulnerable position, the court ruled: • Intervening Cause: The criminal act was unforeseeable and broke the causal chain, thus absolving Ford and Firestone from liability. They had no special duty to protect against random criminal acts following a tire failure. 2. Intervening Causes and Liability An intervening cause is an event occurring after the defendant's initial negligence that independently causes further harm. Courts evaluate the foreseeability of these intervening causes to decide if they break the causation chain: • • Foreseeable Intervening Causes: If an event (such as foreseeable high winds spreading a negligently started fire) is predictable, it may not disrupt causation. Unforeseeable Intervening Causes: If a third party’s act or another event is unforeseeable, it may sever the causal link, excusing the defendant from liability. Shelton v. Board of Regents involved a criminal employee using employerprovided resources to commit murder. The court ruled the employee’s actions constituted an unforeseeable intervening cause, relieving the employer of liability. 3. Defenses in Negligence Cases • • Contributory Negligence: A plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care for their safety can completely bar recovery in the few states still using this doctrine. Even slight negligence on the plaintiff’s part that contributes to their injury may prevent recovery. Comparative Negligence: This doctrine, used by most states, assigns partial liability to both parties based on their respective negligence levels. o Pure Comparative Negligence: The plaintiff can recover damages regardless of their degree of fault, though reduced by their percentage of fault. o Mixed Comparative Negligence: Recovery is barred if the plaintiff's negligence exceeds 50%. In Currie v. Chevron USA Inc., the court used comparative negligence to partially assign liability to the injured party, reducing the damages awarded. • Assumption of Risk: Plaintiffs who voluntarily assume a known danger may be barred from recovery. This defense requires that the plaintiff knew of the risk and accepted it freely. Some states handle implied assumption of risk within comparative negligence, while others keep it as a separate defense. Example: A passenger choosing to ride in a car with known brake issues may be deemed to have assumed the risk of injury from brake failure. 4. Special Tort Concepts: Res Ipsa Loquitur and Cyber Negligence • • Res Ipsa Loquitur: Used when negligence is implied by the very nature of an accident, as in Byrne v. Boadle (a barrel falling from a warehouse), where the harm’s occurrence implied negligence by the party in control. Cyber Negligence: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields internet platforms from liability for content posted by third parties. In Gentry v. eBay, Inc., a negligence claim against eBay for misleading user feedback was dismissed, as eBay was not considered a "publisher" of userprovided information under §230. This framework highlights how courts balance liability and defenses in negligence, applying proximate cause and foreseeability tests to determine the responsibility and limitations of defendants in varied scenarios.