How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 6): Actual & Proximate Causation

📚 LAW SCHOOL & BAR EXAM PREP
Law school prep: studicata.com/...
Bar exam prep: studicata.com/...
Free courses: studicata.com/...
❤️ COMMUNITY & REVIEWS
Community: studicata.com/...
Testimonials: studicata.com/...
Submit a review: shoutout.studi...
📱 TECH
iOS app: studicata.com/ios
Android app: studicata.com/...
📣 ABOUT
Studicata provides a fresher, more relatable way to prep for law school finals and the bar exam. With top-rated video lectures, exam walkthrough videos, outlines, study guides, strategy guides, essay practice exams, multiple-choice assessments, performance tracking, and more-Studicata has you covered with everything you need to ace your finals and pass the bar exam with confidence.
Email: [e-mail]
Learn more: studicata.com
-
🎬 VIDEO INFO
How to Analyze Negligence on a Torts Essay (Pt. 6): Actual & Proximate Causation
NEGLIGENCE
To hold a defendant liable for negligence, the plaintiff must establish the following four elements by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff to conform to a specific standard of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm; and (4) the plaintiff sustained actual damages or loss.
CAUSATION
Once we establish that the defendant breached the duty of care owed to the plaintiff, the next question is whether the defendant was the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's harm. To hold a defendant liable for negligence, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant's breach was BOTH the actual and proximate cause of her harm.
ACTUAL CAUSE ("BUT FOR" CAUSE)
To prove actual cause, the plaintiff generally must show that her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s breach.
However, if traditional "but for" causation cannot be shown, most courts are willing to implement a "substantial factor" test. Under a substantial factor test, actual cause can be established if the defendant's breach was a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff's harm.
PROXIMATE CAUSE
To prove proximate cause, the plaintiff must show that her injury was a foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach. An intervening cause is an outside force or action that contributes to the plaintiff’s harm after the defendant’s breach has occurred. If the intervening cause is unforeseeable, it is a superseding cause and the defendant’s liability to the plaintiff is cut off from that point forward. (Further negligent acts are considered foreseeable. Criminal acts, intentional torts, and nature-induced "acts of god" are considered unforeseeable.)
Under the eggshell plaintiff rule, the defendant is liable for all harm suffered by the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff suffered from an unforeseeable, preexisting mental or physical condition that aggravates the harm.
Learn more: studicata.com

[@owuorunmasked7969]

Law student here and this makes so much sense. I wish law is taught first without cases

[@studicata]

Glad it's helpful for you!

[@ketevanvashakidze4253]

This guy is genius :) You are born a teacher

[@richierich8412]

Absolutely!

[@chitownsq]

Your explanations are clear and precise. Thanks for taking the time to do this!

[@studicata]

No problem, happy to help!

[@francesg4517]

Haha, the meteorite example took me out 🤣🤣. Thank you for being a teacher capable of impacting knowledge! You have taught me negligence in the easiest way possible and I’ve got a great grasp of it! Thanks for the subtle humors too

[@sabriberisha1042]

1L here. Finally, I understand proximate causation. Studicata earned a new subscriber today.

[@studicata]

Awesome-welcome aboard!

[@adrianaedmon]

Wow! You are very good! Excellent explanation, thank you!

[@studicata]

No problem, happy to help! 💪

[@Checkersss]

You're very good at explaining everything! Great video!

[@studicata]

Thank you for the support!

[@Carmycarmyesq]

thank you! your lectures are foreign attorney friendly!

[@kamauwilliamk]

He is so good 👍at this...

[@bradwindings1943]

will you take my torts professor's job thx

[@studicata]

Lol, I am available for hire . . . 🤗

[@mingyuwang6638]

@@studicata take mine first

[@zerowastecalifornia]

@@studicata do you tutor :D

[@larysaakhavan7058]

That’s how it needs to be explained! Thank you!

[@studicata]

Happy to help!

[@kokocarter3371]

Lesson learned -- no texting and driving!

[@francesg4517]

😅😅

[@LaurenCaylor-wl8qd]

My professor has never been able to teach this as clearly as you have in a few short videos, Thank you so much!

[@scottshipley3173]

This man is gifted!

[@Stephen_567]

Great video, I am not a lawyer but I find this video very educational.

[@sharriegi]

Hi the Torts Damages is not here, could you upload it please? Your videos are great!!!

[@graceren8925]

That is very good teaching, he said he is going to talk about the part for damage in the following lecture it should be Pt. 7 but I could not find anywhere, I would be appreciated if anyone can point it out.

[@hiyou5974]

you make law of torts interesting thank you very much !

[@almostfancyconnoisseur8929]

teaching law is not at all an easy thing to do but you have a vocation for it and law in general

[@cg79341]

Great video and explanation! One question/comment I'm curious about. When the meteor hits the ambulance, it makes sense that the original driver is not liable for any injuries arising out of that accident (say, the broken arm). However, if the doctor still performed a negligent operation on the leg injury that the driver initially caused, I would think the driver is still liable, because a negligent operation on that original injury is still foreseeable. What do you think?

[@flaviusaetius5701]

superceding cause breaks the chain, its no longer foreseeable as the meteorite is now what is responsible

[@flaviusaetius5701]

the DOOTY i love the way you emphasize words LOL thanks for all these lessons I would have failed torts without you

[@madeleinedombrowski9913]

oh my god i finally get it now. thank you for this video :)

[@mingyuwang6638]

holy cow I have to use the F word, YOU ARE SO FKING GOOOOOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@angiepolk3450]

I am sitting for the bar in a week. Can you do a video on defamation and products liability?

[@reemyassin2046]

Here we go! Thank you! ❤️🙏🏻😭

[@danielbyrne2073]

You had me at "but for"

[@carinaleal6726]

Finals crunch time savior .

[@williambernardbrown]

Wow! All acts of negligence are foreseeable.

[@user-wn6kp8xd1w]

I guess I'm 4 years late, but thank you for making these videos. Super helpful resource

[@Adcrismr]

Overthinking here; if the meteorite kills the “plaintiff”? Wouldn't the Defendant still be the actual/proximate cause and subject to liability under derivative claims?

[@zainabarooj3139]

😂

[@idarechitwemba1918]

Gifted lawyer and law teacher

[@nataliagutierrez3156]

Amazing explanation!

[@LostJellybean]

very well explained

[@studicata]

Thank you!

[@virajjain9786]

Can anybody help me find the next "damages" video for the negligence essay analysis..unable to find it in this playlist... it would be really helpful!

[@abdijalilabdiaziz3617]

What about if i put agun at home andit automatically opened without any touching it and it caused death?,

[@G.Harley.Davidson]

Funny that everyone here knows what ad nausium means! My first research paper was returned bleeding with red ink, saying “ we’ve discussed this ‘ ad nausium ‘ in class. “ haha

[@Mileslocked]

could proximate cause also be referred to as cause in law or remoteness of damage?

[@banneroftruthetrust1718]

Uhmm.. Prof...you are great.Thanks so much. You have really helped me. Keep this going please.

[@nadineghebreal1500]

Do you have a part 7 for damages

[@mikeadray1845]

Well explained, sir!

[@Dk7423]

thank you so much, its so helpful.

[@coolstuffunboxings1127]

Amazing Seris. Thank You!!!!

[@lawstudentsplatform]

Thank you for cleaning my concept

[@samsonsu1541]

On eggshell plaintiff, why not just say D is liable (no sever PC) bc it's foreseeable type of harm but unforeseeable 'extent' of injury? Calling it an "exception" can be a bit confusing.

[@jacobhoback9746]

What is the reason for actual cause being a thing then? Can you even have proximate cause without actual cause? Why not just require proximate cause?

[@jasonrastegar8150]

Where is the damages video?

[@michaelchileshe6126]

Excellent videos

[@TheTurtle1100]

Great videos. Great hair.

[@artemisiagentileschi2400]

What are defenses to these 3 foreseeable negligent acts?

[@lizb4106]

helpful.. thank you

[@brabdlh]

Thanks.

[@studicata]

No problem!

[@kamauwilliamk]

Beneficial

[@alexanderterry4305]

I know an awesome school on Rhode Island where you should be teaching.

[@judithmarlenewagner288]

You are great!!

[@anthonyebenezer2877]

yes sir

[@jaysstudio3424]

You are the man

[@studicata]

Thank you!

[@ButtonPusher1997]

Where’s the damages video?

[@leemoore8154]

I'm not saying it's wrong, but treating future negligence by other parties as foreseeable seems like a ridiculous system. Where does the negligence of the other party come into play? In your example, are you and the other driver jointly liable for the broken arm, and are the three of you (you, the other driver, and the surgeon) jointly liable for the amputated leg?

[@Stephen_567]

How long this chain of liability might last?

[@francesg4517]

Until an unforeseen event happens that would break the chain of liability

[@briataylor935]

The summation of actual and approximate cause: Don't text and drive.

[@josh2421]

ily

[@mehmetokay7073]

What if the wheel comes off the ambulance during the transport? Does strict liability in tort break the chain of causation? Exasperation or exacerbation? By the way, you are hot bro.

[@comment8767]

Pro Tip: Always wear undershirt when taking bar exam.

[@studicata]

🚨 SPECIAL OFFER: Want to crush law school finals, rack up scholarship $$$, pass the bar exam, and practice law like a BOSS? Take the LEAP. Get started today for free at: www.studicata.com/leap