What You'll Learn

  • Why proximate cause exists 2. Foreseeable plaintiff and harm
  • Scope of risk 4. Intervening causes
  • An exam sequence

Educational information only; not legal advice. This article is a general study aid and should be checked against current authority and course materials.

1. Focus on Plaintiff, Harm, and Risk

Foreseeable plaintiff Ask whether someone in the plaintiff's position was within the range of danger created by the conduct. Foreseeable type of harm The precise sequence can be unusual so long as the general injury falls within the risk.

Risk rule Liability is limited to harms that arise from the risks that made the conduct negligent in the first place. Policy limit Courts may restrict liability when the causal chain becomes remote, highly extraordinary, or administratively unmanageable.

The eggshell-plaintiff rule operates after the type of harm is within the scope of risk. The defendant takes the plaintiff as found and remains liable for the full extent of an unexpectedly severe injury caused by a preexisting condition.

2. Classify Intervening Events Carefully

An intervening event occurs after the defendant's conduct and contributes to the harm. It becomes superseding only when the law treats it as sufficiently unforeseeable or abnormal to break the chain of liability.

Intervening event Ordinary treatment Why

Rescue attempt Usually foreseeable and not superseding. Danger invites rescue, although the rescuer must still act reasonably.

Medical negligence Ordinarily foreseeable and not superseding. Injured persons predictably seek treatment, and treatment can be imperfect.

Another person's ordinary negligence Often intervening but not superseding. Negligence by others is a recurring risk in many settings.

Intentional or criminal act May be superseding if independent and unforeseeable. Liability may remain when the original negligence made that misconduct foreseeable.

Natural force Depends on foreseeability and the risk involved. An ordinary storm may not supersede negligent maintenance; an extraordinary event may.

Plaintiff's extraordinary conduct May break the chain. Highly unusual conduct outside the original risk can become superseding.

Key Takeaway

The Cardozo approach emphasizes duty to plaintiffs within the foreseeable zone of danger. The Andrews approach speaks more broadly of duty and uses proximate cause to limit remote consequences. On an exam, identify the approach the jurisdiction uses and keep the foreseeable-plaintiff and foreseeable-harm questions distinct.

Exact manner is not required

A defendant need not foresee every detail. If an unsecured worksite is negligent because vehicles may enter it, a driver's seizure does not necessarily supersede when a vehicle intrusion is the very risk that called for barriers.

Criminal acts are not automatically superseding

The question remains whether the criminal conduct was one of the dangers the defendant had reason to anticipate, such as foreseeable violence, theft, or misuse.

3. Trace the Scope of Liability

1 State the negligent conduct and the risk that made it unreasonable. 2 Identify whether the plaintiff was within the foreseeable zone or class of persons endangered. 3 Describe the general type of harm, not merely the exact accident sequence. 4 Compare the actual harm with the original risk. 5 Classify later events as intervening and decide whether any is superseding. 6 Apply the eggshell-plaintiff rule only after the type of injury is within the scope of liability.

Key Takeaway

A contractor leaves a roadwork trench unprotected. A driver loses control because of an unexpected seizure, enters the work area, and propels a worker into hot equipment. The driver's medical episode is intervening, but vehicle intrusion is the risk that made the missing barrier unreasonable; the event may therefore be foreseeable rather than superseding.

Common Mistake

Do not ask only whether "something bad" was foreseeable. Define the particular risk at the correct level of generality and connect it to the plaintiff and the kind of injury.

Primary Authorities

  • • Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (foreseeable plaintiff and competing duty approaches).

  • • Overseas Tankship (Wagon Mound) (foreseeable consequences).

  • • Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. (foreseeable intervening act).

  • • Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad Co. (criminal or careless ignition).

  • • Bartolone v. Jeckovich (eggshell plaintiff).

Exam-ready conclusion

Proximate cause is a scope question. Liability follows when the plaintiff and the type of harm fall within the risks that made the conduct negligent, unless an extraordinary superseding event justifies cutting off responsibility.