Loading The VR School
Loading The VR School
This week examines proximate cause (legal cause) — the policy determination of how far liability should extend from a negligent act. Even when the defendant's breach is the actual cause of harm, courts limit liability to harms that are within the scope of the risk that made the conduct negligent. You will learn the foreseeability test, the direct cause test, intervening and superseding causes, the thin skull (eggshell plaintiff) rule, and how courts draw the line between remote consequences and those for which the defendant should be responsible.
Proximate cause asks: How far should liability extend?
Even when defendant's negligence ACTUALLY caused the harm (cause in fact), courts use proximate cause to limit liability to consequences that are fair to impose on the defendant.
Cause in fact = factual connection (did the breach cause the harm?)
Proximate cause = policy limitation (should we hold defendant liable for this particular consequence?)
Defendant is liable only for harms that are the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their negligent conduct.
| Type | Foreseeable? | Breaks Chain? | Example | |------|------------|--------------|--------| | Negligent medical treatment | Yes | No | Doctor worsens injuries during treatment | | Rescue attempts | Yes | No | Rescuer injured saving plaintiff | | Subsequent accident | Often yes | No | Second car hits plaintiff already in road | | Disease/infection | Yes | No | Wound becomes infected | | Normal weather | Yes | No | Rain worsens road damage | | Intentional criminal act | Usually no | Yes (superseding) | Third party deliberately harms plaintiff | | Extraordinary natural event | No | Yes (superseding) | Unprecedented flood, earthquake | | Highly unusual response | No | Yes (superseding) | Bizarre chain of events |
You take your plaintiff as you find them.
If defendant's negligence causes ANY foreseeable harm, defendant is liable for the FULL EXTENT of damages — even if the severity is unforeseeable due to a pre-existing condition.
Example: Defendant negligently rear-ends plaintiff's car (foreseeable harm: whiplash). But plaintiff has a rare bone disease, and the impact causes catastrophic spinal fracture. Defendant is liable for the full spinal injury — not just normal whiplash.
Proximate cause appears in every negligence essay. Key tested patterns: - Intervening cause analysis (was it foreseeable? did it break the chain?) - Eggshell plaintiff (unexpected severity of harm) - Remote consequences (chain of events stretching foreseeability) - The superseding criminal act question
The statutes SofAI ties to this topic. Use them as your IRAC rule block, then verify the current text on the official leginfo link.
Everyone is responsible for injury caused to another by their lack of ordinary care, subject to comparative fault for the injured person's own negligence.
Exam hook: Cite §1714 as the duty/standard-of-care baseline, then apply Rowland factors when duty is contested.
In a case with more than one at-fault party, each defendant pays non-economic damages (like pain and suffering) only in proportion to their own share of fault.
Proximate cause is tested on every Baby Bar negligence question. The foreseeability test, intervening/superseding cause analysis, and eggshell plaintiff rule are among the most commonly tested concepts. Always analyze proximate cause SEPARATELY from actual cause in your essay.