Alice operates a factory and negligently stores flammable materials. A fire breaks out and causes minor damage to a neighboring business, owned by Bob. While firefighters are responding to the fire, an unexpected tornado strikes the area, causing extensive additional damage to Bob’s business. Bob sues Alice for the damages. What is the best analysis of Alice's liability for Bob's total damages?
Alice is liable for both the minor fire damage and the additional tornado damage.
Alice is not liable for the damages because the tornado was an unforeseeable intervening event.
Alice is liable for the minor damage caused by the fire but not for the additional damage caused by the tornado.
Alice is liable for the minor damage caused by the fire.
Alice is liable for the minor damage caused by the fire because it was a foreseeable result of her negligence. However, the unexpected tornado is a superseding cause that was not foreseeable and thus breaks the chain of causation for the additional damage. Therefore, Alice is not liable for the tornado-related damages.
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 meant by 'foreseeable result of negligence' in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is a 'superseding cause' and how does it affect liability?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the concept of negligence apply to business operations?