A motorist negligently struck a pedestrian who was jaywalking across a busy city street. Although the pedestrian suffered serious injuries to their leg as a result of the collision, they received delayed medical treatment due to hospital overcrowding, which significantly worsened the injury. The pedestrian sues the motorist, alleging negligence. To succeed, what requirement must the pedestrian establish with regard to the injury?
The motorist is responsible for the initial injury, and the delay in medical treatment breaks the chain of causation.
The motorist's liability depends on whether the pedestrian was jaywalking at the time of the accident.
The motorist's negligent act was the factual and proximate cause of the pedestrian's injuries despite the hospital's delayed treatment.
The motorist's negligence was a necessary step in the sequence of events that caused the pedestrian's injuries.
The pedestrian must show that the motorist's negligence was both the factual ('but for') cause and a proximate (foreseeable) cause of the injury. Delayed medical treatment does not usually break the chain of causation if it is a foreseeable consequence of the original negligent act. Incorrect answers either ignore the foreseeability requirement or misinterpret the effect of the delayed treatment on causation.
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.
What is the difference between factual and proximate cause in negligence cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the concept of 'foreseeability' impact negligence claims?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the key elements needed to prove negligence in a personal injury case?