Week 3 Discussion Thread-Negligence-Superseding Cause
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Liberty University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
280
Subject
Law
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
7
Uploaded by BaronDanger7242
Discussion Thread: Negligence—Superseding Cause
Jesus Emmanuel Jehovah, Student #32643727
Liberty University
GOVT280: Undergraduate Torts, Autumn 2023
Professor Jennifer Riedthaler-Williams
Due Date: September 11, 2023; Extension Granted
2
I.
Introduction
In the example given in the prompt, when Marilyn negligently ran over Lucinda, it caused injury to Lucinda by breaking her leg. Such is a direct injury by Marilyn to Lucinda, and liability attaches to allow Lucinda to recover from Marilyn to redress such. However, while Lucinda is recovering from such injury and learning to walk on crutches, she slips, falls, and breaks her arm. In this scenario, is Lucinda’s fall a superseding cause of her injury, and would the answer change if it was known that at the time Lucinda fell and broke her arm she was trying to walk across an extremely narrow walkway and doing so on a dare from her friends? These questions are answered herein.
II.
Is Lucinda’s Fall A Superseding Cause of Her Broken Arm?
Liability in civil law is generally based on the acts of a wrongdoer causing injuries to others and the interests of society in redressing such wrongdoing to try to make injured persons whole again. The Bible even teaches the imperative and necessity of those harming others being liable for such:
If anyone injures his neighbor, whatever he has done must be done to him: fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Just as he injured the other person, the same must be
inflicted on him (Berean Standard Bible, 2016/2020, Leviticus 24:19-20).
Such commands of God reflect the biblical legal principle of an “eye for an eye” and help to influence people to “do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the
Law and the Prophets” (Berean Standard Bible, 2016/2020, Matthew 7:12). Nonetheless, ancient Israelites found such hard to live by and, with approval from God, interpreted such to permit a wrongdoer to compensate an injured person financially for an injury the wrongdoer caused.
3
While the foregoing verses show the Bible requires imposition of liability on wrongdoers who cause injury, the Bible also precludes liability where there is a superseding cause of injury (such as by a third person) because it states that each person shall be accountable for their own wrongs and not for the wrongs of others (Berean Standard Bible, 2016/2020, Ezekiel 18:20). American law also generally exempts a person from liability when there is a superseding cause of injury. NOCO Co. v. OJ Commerce, LLC
, 35 F.4th 475, 483 (6th Cir. 2022). Thus, biblical law
and American law exempt a person from liability where there is a superseding cause, but was Lucinda’s fall a superseding cause? Given the very limited amount of information provided in the scenario, for a few different reasons Lucinda’s fall is not
a superseding cause.
The superseding cause doctrine applies where “the defendant's negligence in fact substantially contributed to the plaintiff's injury, but the injury was actually brought about by a later cause of independent origin that was not foreseeable.” Exxon Co. U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc.
, 517 U.S. 830, 837 (1996); Barnett v. United States
, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6200, *32-33 (D.S.C. 2023)(same). In other words, if the injury was a foreseeable result from Marilyn’s negligence in breaking Lucinda’s leg, then there is no superseding cause and Marilyn remains liable. In this regard, it is reasonably foreseeable that breaking someone’s leg could result in them subsequently falling and seriously hurting themselves: legs give people balance and support in walking, and if a leg is injured or broken it can seriously reduce a person’s balance and support in walking and easily give rise to a fall and serious injury. “If the defendant should have foreseen
the possibility that an intervening cause or one like it might occur, she remains liable” (Edwards, 2016, p. 147). Because Lucinda’s fall was foreseeable, the doctrine of superseding cause does not
apply and her fall was not a superseding cause of injury.
1
1
While Lucinda’s negligence in walking with crutches was an intervening cause, her fall was still reasonably
foreseeable from the original injury because “an intervening cause is considered reasonably foreseeable when the defendant's negligence enhances the likelihood that the intervening cause will occur.” Rupert v. Daggett
, 695 F.3d 417, 426 (6th Cir. 2012). Here, Marilyn breaking Lucinda’s leg “enhance[d] the likelihood” that Lucinda would
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4
Moreover, Marilyn breaking Lucinda’s leg caused Lucinda to be in a physically weakened state and especially susceptible to subsequent accidents and injuries from trying to walk with or without crutches. “[I]f the defendant causes the plaintiff to be in a weakened state, making him susceptible to…accidents, he will be held liable for any subsequent…accidents the plaintiff suffers” (Edwards, 2016, p. 147). Here, Marilyn broke Lucinda’s leg, causing her to be in a weakened state and susceptible to accidents while walking and trying to walk, which establishes Lucinda’s fall is not a superseding cause of injury. Those with opposing views might assert that Lucinda was negligent in trying to walk with crutches, that in doing so she assumed the risk of injury and was contributorily negligent, and that her fall and resulting broken arm are thus not attributable to Marilyn. Such opposing views have no merit because “where the negligent conduct of the first actor [Marilyn] increases the foreseeable risk of a particular harm occurring through the conduct of a second actor [Lucinda], the fact that the harm is brought about through the intervention of another force [i.e., trying to walk with crutches and falling] does not relieve the first actor [Marilyn] of liability” (Edwards, 2016, p. 150)(bracketing supplied). Moreover, Lucinda negligently walking with the crutches is not a superseding cause because “the foreseeable negligence of others will not be considered a superseding cause” (Edwards, 2016, p. 147) and such “ordinary negligence by the victim
or a third party will not
be regarded as a superseding cause because ordinary negligence is
reasonably foreseeable.” Odisho v. Yacouba
, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121786, *15 (E.D. Mich. 2022)(emphasis added). And “[o]ne's own conduct cannot be an intervening cause sufficient to defeat a finding of causation. A superseding cause is something culpable that intervenes [and is generally] some action of a third party that makes the plaintiff's injury an unforeseeable subsequently fall and serious hurt herself, thus making the intervening cause reasonably foreseeable to result from Marilyn’s negligence in breaking Lucinda’s leg.
5
consequence of the defendant’s negligence.” Whitlock v. Brueggemann
, 682 F.3d 567, 584 (7th Cir. 2012)(bracketing supplied). Here, there was no action by a third party and Lucinda’s own conduct, whether negligent or not, cannot be an intervening/superseding cause. III.
Would The Foregoing Answer Change If It Was Discovered That Linda Fell And Broke Her Arm While Trying to Walk Across an Extremely Narrow Walkway Upon A Dare from her Friends?
My foregoing answer would
change if it was discovered that Linda fell and broke her arm
while trying to walk —and while learning to walk with crutches and with a broken leg—across an extremely narrow walkway upon a dare from her friends. The reasons it would change is because such information precludes her conduct being foreseeable and requires finding such was a superseding cause. Specifically, it would not be reasonably foreseeable to Marilyn (or anyone else) that Lucinda, after incurring a broken leg from Marilyn’s negligence, would then (while recovering from such broken leg) try to walk using crutches (and while learning to use crutches) across an extremely narrow walkway, especially in the context of a dare by her friends when such dare inherently imports their recognition that such was obviously very dangerous for her. Trying to walk across an “extremely narrow walkway” could be inherently dangerous in many circumstances, even for healthy people without injured legs. See, e.g., Jovanovich v. United States
, 813 F.2d 1035, 1036 (9th Cir. 1987)(healthy person walking upon “a narrow walkway” lost his footing and fell, resulting in “a serious injury”). Making such a walk while trying to learn
to walk on crutches with a broken leg is exceedingly more dangerous. It would not be reasonably foreseeable that Lucinda would engage in such extremely dangerous conduct and greatly risk seriously injuring herself, after Marilyn broke her leg. As such, this information would indicate a superseding cause for Lucinda’s broken arm (namely, Lucinda engaging in unforeseeable
and exceedingly dangerous conduct). In such circumstances,
6
she assumed an extreme risk of injuring herself and of breaking her arm, and such decision to engage in inherently dangerous and unforeseeable conduct precludes the causal link between her initial broken leg injury and her subsequent fall breaking her arm and establishes a superseding cause for her broken arm.
References
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
7
Barnett v. United States
, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6200 (D.S.C. 2023).
Edwards, J.S. (2016). Tort Law (6th Edition)
. Cengage Learning Incorporated: Boston, MA.
Exxon Co. U.S.A. v. Sofec, Inc.
, 517 U.S. 830 (1996).
Jovanovich v. United States
, 813 F.2d 1035 (9th Cir. 1987).
NOCO Co. v. OJ Commerce, LLC
, 35 F.4th 475 (6th Cir. 2022).
Odisho v. Yacouba
, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121786 ( E.D. Mich. 2022).
Rupert v. Daggett
, 695 F.3d 417, 426 (6th Cir. 2012).
The Holy Bible:
Berean Standard Bible
. (2020). Biblehub.com. https://biblehub.com
(Original work published 2016).
Whitlock v. Brueggemann
, 682 F.3d 567 (7th Cir. 2012).