Emma is moving out of her apartment. She is carrying a large box out to her car as Alessandra is riding her bike at a fast speed on the sidewalk. Alessandra yells, “Get out of my way!” Emma jumps from the sidewalk into the street, as a car is approaching. Dan, the driver of the car, swerves to avoid hitting Emma, and strikes a parked car. Emma drops the box, breaking its contents, and sprains her ankle as she avoids the oncoming car. Zachary is sitting in the parked car, and hits his head on the windshield as a result of Dan’s vehicle striking his car. Discuss the principles of actual and proximate causation in this case. Assuming that Alessandra was negligent, for which injuries should she be held responsible?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Causation includes two elements. The defendant’s conduct must be both the actual cause and the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. Under the causation in fact principle, there must be a cause and effect relationship between the act and the injury. Actual cause may be shown when “but for” the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. The proximate cause test is applied to determine the foreseeability that the defendant’s conduct would cause the plaintiff’s injury.

Alessandra’s conduct could be found to be the actual cause of all the personal and property injury suffered by Emma, Dan and Zachary. It seems likely that the conduct was also the proximate cause of Emma’s injuries. Was it foreseeable that Dan’s auto damage was a foreseeable consequence of Alessandra’s reckless biking? Or that he would injure an individual sitting in a parked car nearby? Students may argue the extent to which Alessandra should be held liable for damages to these other parties.