Proximate Cause: Special Rules
Proximate cause is normally a foreseeability question decided case by case.
10. Proximate Cause: Special Rules
Although proximate cause is usually a circumstance-dependent question of foreseeability, courts have developed special rules that establish proximate cause in particular circumstances. The Nevada FLE tests three of these rules.
- The original tortfeasor is typically liable for injuries to a rescuer because “danger invites rescue.”
- The original tortfeasor is typically liable for injuries sustained or exacerbated by medical malpractice in treating the original injury.
- Under the “thin skull rule” tortfeasors are liable for unusually extensive injuries or damages due to the plaintiff’s pre-existing situation, weaknesses, or susceptibility, even when unforeseen. In other words, defendants are said to take the plaintiffs as they find them.
The FLE carves out three situations where proximate cause is settled in advance and the original tortfeasor stays liable: injuries to a rescuer, harm exacerbated by medical malpractice treating the original injury, and the thin-skull rule.
Proximate cause is normally a foreseeability question decided case by case. But the FLE carves out three situations where the answer is settled in advance, and the original careless party stays on the hook even though something else came between the wrong and the final injury.
- 1The rescuer rule: if your negligence creates a dangerous situation, you are liable to a person hurt while reasonably trying to rescue, because danger invites rescue. The rescuer is not treated as a volunteer who assumed the risk.
- 2Medical-malpractice aggravation: if your negligence sends someone to the hospital and a doctor's botched treatment makes the injury worse, the added harm is still yours. Negligent medical care of an injury you caused does not cut off your liability.
- 3The thin-skull (eggshell-plaintiff) rule: you take the plaintiff as you find them, so if a hidden weakness or pre-existing condition turns a minor hit into a catastrophic injury, you owe the full extent of the harm, even though the severity was completely unforeseeable. The thin-skull rule governs the extent of harm, not whether any harm was foreseeable in the first place.
Do not call the treating doctor's negligence a superseding cause, and do not cap liability to what an ordinary plaintiff would have suffered. In each of these three situations the defendant's "that was unforeseeable" or "someone else did it" argument loses.
These are the only three special rules the FLE tests.
rmt, in order: Rescuer, Medical malpractice, Thin skull.
Three settled outcomes where the original tortfeasor stays liable.
rescuer: 'Danger invites rescue.' Hurt the rescuer, you bought the rescuer
med-mal: 'You break it, you own the bad repair.' The doctor's negligence in treating your victim does not get you off; the extra harm rolls back to you
thin skull: 'Take them as you find them.' Foreseeability does not limit the extent of harm; the eggshell plaintiff recovers in full even for the unforeseeable severity
One-line cue card: Rescuer hurt?
Doctor made it worse?
Plaintiff unusually fragile?
Original defendant is still liable - say yes and move on.
A careless driver runs a red light and breaks a pedestrian's leg. Three twists, three settled answers.
A bystander who darts into the intersection to drag the pedestrian clear is clipped by another car and breaks an arm.
At the hospital the surgeon negligently sets the leg, and it has to be re-broken and reset, leaving a permanent limp.
It turns out the pedestrian has brittle-bone disease, so the same impact that would merely bruise an ordinary person shatters the leg in five places.
In all three, the instinct to say 'no, that was unforeseeable' or 'no, someone else intervened' is exactly the trap. The rule pre-decides the proximate-cause question in the plaintiff's favor.
A 'no' or capped-liability option that limits the defendant to 'only the injuries an ordinary person would have suffered' or denies recovery because the severe injury was 'not foreseeable.'
The thin-skull rule governs the EXTENT of harm; foreseeability of the severity is irrelevant, and the defendant takes the plaintiff as found. Liability is for the full, unusually extensive injury.An option that calls the treating doctor's negligence a 'superseding cause' that ends the original tortfeasor's liability, importing the ordinary intervening/superseding analysis from concept 9.
The special rule treats negligent treatment of the original injury as within the risk; it does NOT cut off the original tortfeasor, who remains liable for the exacerbation.A 'yes' option that reaches liability on a premises-status or strict-liability theory, or a 'no' option that says the rescuer 'assumed the risk' by choosing to help.
Liability rests on 'danger invites rescue,' and the rescuer is not treated as having assumed the risk so as to bar recovery.An option leaning on a sympathetic but irrelevant fact: the plaintiff was 'unusually susceptible,' the doctor was 'a separate actor,' or the rescuer 'volunteered.'
Under each special rule those facts do not change the settled outcome; the original tortfeasor stays liable.Trigger words in the stem: a second person hurt while helping ('rushed in,' 'pulled to safety,' 'tried to rescue') points to the rescuer rule.
A doctor, surgeon, paramedic, or hospital making the injury worse after the accident points to med-mal aggravation.
A pre-existing or hidden condition ('rare disorder,' 'brittle bones,' 'prior weakness,' 'unusually severe for the impact') that turns a small wrong into a huge injury points to the thin-skull rule.
In all three the defendant's argument is some version of 'that was unforeseeable' or 'someone/something else caused the final harm.' When you see that argument paired with one of the three triggers, the special rule answers it: the original tortfeasor stays liable.
A landlord negligently failed to repair a gas line in an apartment building, and the leak caused a fire that trapped a tenant on an upper floor. A neighbor from across the street ran into the burning building to carry the tenant out and suffered serious burns in the process. The neighbor sued the landlord, who argued that he owed nothing to someone who chose on his own to run into a fire.
Is the landlord likely liable to the injured neighbor?
A bicyclist was knocked down when a delivery driver negligently opened a van door into the bike lane, fracturing the bicyclist's wrist. At the hospital, the treating surgeon negligently performed the repair, and the wrist healed poorly, leaving permanent stiffness the bicyclist would not have had with competent care. The bicyclist sued the delivery driver for the full injury, and the driver argued he should not pay for harm the surgeon caused.
Is the delivery driver likely liable for the worsened wrist condition?
A homeowner negligently left a garden rake teeth-up on a shared walkway, and a guest stepped on it and gashed her foot. The wound itself was minor, but the physician who stitched it negligently used contaminated instruments, the foot became badly infected, and the guest needed weeks of additional treatment. The guest sued the homeowner for all of her harm, including the infection.
For which injuries is the homeowner likely liable?
A grocery store negligently left a slick spill on its floor, and a shopper slipped and fell. An ordinary person would have suffered only a bruise, but the shopper had an undiagnosed blood disorder, and the minor fall caused severe internal bleeding that required surgery. The store argued that it could not have anticipated such a serious injury from so small a fall and should pay only for what a typical customer would have suffered.
For what injuries is the grocery store likely liable?
A contractor negligently bumped a pedestrian with a hand cart on a sidewalk, a jolt that would have left most people unhurt. The pedestrian, however, had a fragile prior back injury, and the minor bump aggravated it into a herniated disc requiring surgery. The contractor conceded the bump was careless but argued he should owe only what an uninjured person would have, since no one could have known about the pedestrian's back.
Is the contractor likely liable for the full extent of the herniated-disc injury?