Cause in fact sine qua non
A is subject to liability to C, but not to D. Taupitz eds. See M. Watson ed.
Proximate cause insurance
It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. Hill v. The story is that during the lunch rush, the can explodes, severely injuring the chef who is preparing food in the kitchen. In the same sense, see R. Schiemann, Schadensersatz 3rd ed. Mine Safety App. Rixecker eds. II 7th ed.
These latter two concepts were, however, never clearly distinguished; cf. Rodger, Damages for the Loss of an Inheritance, in: A.
But for test criminal law
Stryk, Specimen usus moderni pandectarum Halle ff. The classic example of how ACC clauses work is where a hurricane hits a building with wind and flood hazards at the same time. For details R. I , ff. On this highly disputed case see R. If the action were repeated, the likelihood of the harm would correspondingly increase. Deutsch ff. This criticism was first advanced by K. This is a higher burden for the plaintiff employee than merely showing that the jury service was a motivating factor for the termination. See also S. Google Scholar 3. Two examples will illustrate this principle: The classic example is that of a father who gives his child a loaded gun, which she carelessly drops upon the plaintiff's foot, causing injury. For example, a pedestrian, as an expected user of sidewalks, is among the class of people put at risk by driving on a sidewalk, whereas a driver who is distracted by another driver driving on the sidewalk, and consequently crashes into a utility pole, is not. An updated account of recent case law may be found in M.
A rule known by German lawyers as Regressverbot. Sine qua non".
Proximate cause case law examples
Google Scholar 2. On appeal, the court appointed experts to investigate the assumption by the lower court that smoking is not constrained by addiction: ord. Harm within the risk[ edit ] The harm within the risk HWR test determines whether the victim was among the class of persons who could foreseeably be harmed, and whether the harm was foreseeable within the class of risks. The main criticism of this test is that it is preeminently concerned with culpability, rather than actual causation. Edmonds, N. Company liable? Jansen, Die Struktur des Haftungsrechts. Among all these criteria the most salient ones are adequate causation, the general risk associated with existence, prohibition to go back to a prior cause when there has been interference, the scope of protection of the infringed rule, provocation and the increase of risk.
based on 32 review