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