Cause-In-FactĬause-in-fact is the final element in the negligence analysis and is often the easiest to prove. Likewise, if the defendant acts unreasonably, but an intervening factor such as a third party steps in and contributes to the plaintiff’s injury, the defendant may not be liable. If a plaintiff is engaging in conduct that increases the likelihood of harm, the defendant’s conduct may not be ruled as the proximate cause of that harm. Plaintiff conduct and intervening factors can also affect the analysis of proximate cause. For example, if the defendant throws a rock off of their balcony of a high-rise building without looking, and the rock strikes the plaintiff walking on the sidewalk below, the defendant’s actions are the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury because the defendant should have foreseen the possibility that the rock could hit someone below them. One way to assess proximate cause is to evaluate the foreseeability of the defendant’s actions resulting in harm. To satisfy proximate cause, the defendant’s breach of the duty of care must be the actual cause of the harm to the plaintiff. Some states recognize emotional distress as harm to the plaintiff, even if the harm is purely mental and not physical. Harm that is solely economic usually will not satisfy this element in proving negligence. Typically, harm to the plaintiff must be either bodily harm or harm to property ( personal property or real property). Instead, the defendant is encouraged to take precautions that reduce either the probability of harm or severity of possible harm, such that their burden is less than the probability of harm multiplied by the severity of potential harm. The idea is not to eliminate the risk of harm entirely, for complete elimination of risk would result in a high economical burden for the defendant that would then trickle down to costs for the consumer. This formula considers economic costs to the defendant in its approach to assessing liability. If the burden of taking such precautions is less than the probability of injury multiplied by the severity of the resulting injury, then the defending party breached their duty of care to the plaintiff and may be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries, if the remaining elements of negligence can be proven.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |