Proximate-cause questions are rarely about memorizing labels. They are about deciding whether later events are the sort of consequences that made the original conduct negligent in the first place.
Proximate-cause questions are rarely about memorizing labels. They are about deciding whether later events are the sort of consequences that made the original conduct negligent in the first place.
Very High priority
Limits liability to FORESEEABLE consequences of negligent act. DIRECT CAUSE: If unbroken chain, D liable for all foreseeable harms. INTERVENING CAUSES: Foreseeable intervening acts don't break chain (medical malpractice after injury, negligence of rescuers, subsequent disease). SUPERSEDING CAUSES break chain: Unforeseeable intervening acts (criminal acts of third parties generally unforeseeable, unless D's negligence increased risk). EGGSHELL PLAINTIFF: Take victim as you find them - liable for full extent of injuries even if unforeseeable severity (preexisting condition). Thin skull rule doesn't break proximate cause.
HYPO: D negligently rear-ends P's car (minor fender-bender). P has unknown brittle bone disease and suffers multiple fractures requiring surgery. At hospital, doctor negligently prescribes wrong medication, causing P liver damage. D argues not liable for extensive injuries. ANALYSIS: EGGSHELL PLAINTIFF: D takes P as D finds P. Brittle bones = preexisting condition. D liable for ALL fractures even though disproportionate to impact. INTERVENING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE: Is it superseding cause breaking chain? NO - medical treatment after injury is FORESEEABLE intervening cause. Negligent medical treatment does not break causal chain. D remains liable for liver damage too. D can seek contribution from hospital. RESULT: D proximately caused ALL injuries - fractures (eggshell rule) AND liver damage (foreseeable intervening cause).
Section sources
Concurrent causes
Ordinary negligent rescue, negligent medical care, and predictable second collisions usually remain inside the orbit of foreseeable harm. The original defendant is not excused merely because another careless actor shows up later. That later negligence becomes a concurrent cause unless it is so bizarre and independent that it changes the risk entirely.
Section sources
Damages scope
Once the defendant causes the kind of physical harm that was foreseeable, the defendant takes the plaintiff as found. A hidden fragility, rare blood disorder, or unusual susceptibility does not cut down liability simply because the injury becomes more severe than expected. The rule does not create duty where none existed, but it does prevent the defendant from arguing that only a healthy plaintiff would have been hurt less badly.
Section sources
No. When the criminal act is the very risk that made the defendant negligent, it is usually treated as foreseeable rather than superseding.
After you establish that the defendant foreseeably caused a physical impact or injury of the relevant kind. It expands the extent of damages, not the duty analysis.