A driver negligently speeds through a suburban neighborhood and hits a pedestrian, injuring her severely. Moments later, a passerby attempts to assist the pedestrian but accidentally drops her on the ground, causing a new injury unrelated to the initial accident. Is the driver liable for the injury caused by the passerby?
No, the driver is not liable because the injury caused by the passerby was unrelated to the driver’s original actions.
Yes, the driver is liable because the passerby’s actions are considered a foreseeable consequence of the driver's negligence.
No, the driver is not liable because the passerby’s independent act breaks the chain of causation.
The correct answer is that the driver is liable for the passerby’s actions because the passerby's negligence in assisting, although an independent act, is not considered to be a superseding cause under established tort law principles. Injuries caused by attempts to rescue or assist the victim following the initial harm are generally deemed foreseeable and therefore fall within the scope of proximate causation. On the other hand, a superseding cause would completely break the chain of causation by being highly unforeseeable and independent, which is not the case here. The idea that intervening assistance falls under proximate cause is based on the 'rescue doctrine,' which recognizes that rescue attempts are a normal response to situations caused by negligence, making them foreseeable. This is why an answer that categorizes the passerby's act as a superseding cause would be incorrect.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.