BLS 111 Lecture 8: paper analysis.act of negligence
27 Oct 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Document Summary
Punk (intervening cause ) causor = create new negligence, or perceptibly increase the owing negligence. *the injury of sarah and pancho is not because of the rst three negligence (shopper, mrs tulip, rdn) *we are gonna say it is breach of duty because we assume that the time to clean the layer is just until 7 minutes. Cause in fact= what was reasonable foreseeable here. As you get farther away it is less proximate. If jury would say it is not reasonable foreseeable , they just gonna pay shopper and mrs. Punk (creates new negligence) we need duty again. my duty can be avoiding dangerous situation. it is breaching duty but for it is not the reason of the injury of sarah and pancho. So it is not reasonable foreseeable. it is not because it is not legally proximate cause. (subjective analysis of whether you believe what happened is reasonable foreseeable.
