Great video. I think the only issue is what should truly be considered a superseding intervening event? As you stated in the video high winds blowing and causing electric poles to fall may not be considered unforeseeable but who's to say that someone else would not consider that to be unforeseeable. I think the unforeseeable factor can be as clear as much sometimes
Years ago, I took care of a young man who had been shot in the back with a shotgun. For the third time- the pellets were three different sizes and many had previously left in. He needed multiple reconstructive surgeries because he had lost part of his shoulder blade, and it was possible to watch his lung inflate and deflate. He was doing well. This young man was an IV drug user, and the sharing of needles without disinfection introduces many microbes into the bloodstream, where they are carried into the heart and commonly start to grow long fibers hanging off the valves in the interior of the heart. These fibers float in the circulation and can obstruct the flow of blood completely, leading to massive brain damage and death. So when he passed, the shotgun-wielding assailants faced no murder charge. A ball of fungus fibers had completely obstructed the outflow of blood from the heart. Since we knew he had fungal lesions in the heart, wouldn’t this be a foreseeable intervening cause?
Thank you, your videos really help with understanding how to make a well founded argument in every day discussions. I'm not planning to go to law school, but I watch your videos to help me become a better communicator and critical thinker. The two troubles I have with debates are that I get into them before I know I'm in one, so I have not properly established my points or prepared mentally for the debate, and that I sometimes let my emotions get in the way of clear thinking.
I don't understand if this concept of intervening act applies to Stephen in the case below. What's your take on it? I am finding it difficult because I feel like both parties are guilty of gross negligence manslaughter. Stephen goes for a night out in a local nightclub, 'Dance-off'. When he gets there he find the club is full to capacity. However, as Stephen is a friend of Bill (who is the doorman at Dance-off), Bill turns a allows them in. Once inside, Stephen finds it very difficult to move, but while pushing through a group, one of the people who is pushed by Stephen falls into Anna who in turn falls down. Stephen feels bad and tries to help her, but the crowd is pushing him back and he finds it too hard to get close, so he leaves her. Anna later dies in hospital. Had she received help earlier, she would have survived.
It's an intervening act, but appears to be a foreseeable intervening act. Keep in mind that not all legal minds agree on what is foreseeable or unforeseeable. Two lawyers, looking at the same facts, can disagree. We all can see that there is an intervening act though.
John is being chased by the defendant. The defendant is carrying a baseball bat. John runs across a divided highway to get away from the defendant. While doing so, John is hit and killed by a motorist on the highway. is he responsible?
Proximate cause is measured through the foreseeable test. It is reasonably foreseeable that someone being chased with a baseball bat will attempt to escape. This could include running across a busy road.
Excellent video and explanation! Your materials have been a huge help down the homestretch for final exams. Good luck to all the other 1Ls watching.
A shout out to Stephen, who recommended that I make this video. If anyone has a topic you want me to cover, please post it in the discussion tab.
Great video. I think the only issue is what should truly be considered a superseding intervening event? As you stated in the video high winds blowing and causing electric poles to fall may not be considered unforeseeable but who's to say that someone else would not consider that to be unforeseeable. I think the unforeseeable factor can be as clear as much sometimes
Yes, two judges looking at the same facts can reach different conclusions.
@@Learnlawbetter you are right. That's what happened in this case between judge Cardozo & Andrews.
Rescue doctrines and contributory vs comparison ....
Your videos are truly the best. Please consider adding these two topics
Thanks for the suggestions--I've placed them on my list.
Learn Law Better
Also assumption of the risk please
I watch Barbri and TH-cam videos hourly. Your TH-cam teachings are the best. Thank you!
Okay.
Years ago, I took care of a young man who had been shot in the back with a shotgun. For the third time- the pellets were three different sizes and many had previously left in. He needed multiple reconstructive surgeries because he had lost part of his shoulder blade, and it was possible to watch his lung inflate and deflate. He was doing well.
This young man was an IV drug user, and the sharing of needles without disinfection introduces many microbes into the bloodstream, where they are carried into the heart and commonly start to grow long fibers hanging off the valves in the interior of the heart. These fibers float in the circulation and can obstruct the flow of blood completely, leading to massive brain damage and death.
So when he passed, the shotgun-wielding assailants faced no murder charge. A ball of fungus fibers had completely obstructed the outflow of blood from the heart.
Since we knew he had fungal lesions in the heart, wouldn’t this be a foreseeable intervening cause?
Thank you, your videos really help with understanding how to make a well founded argument in every day discussions. I'm not planning to go to law school, but I watch your videos to help me become a better communicator and critical thinker. The two troubles I have with debates are that I get into them before I know I'm in one, so I have not properly established my points or prepared mentally for the debate, and that I sometimes let my emotions get in the way of clear thinking.
When you find yourself in one, stop and ask: is this something I really want to debate. Often we alienate people, so it is better to stop.
That is good advice, thank you
Thank you for a clear explanation!
Whew! Thank You 🙏🏿. This video helped me out a lot!
Crisp & massively useful :)
Glad to hear that!
Thanks, Professor Baez!
Thank you very helpful in helping me understand superseding vs intervening cause
You are so welcome!
I don't understand if this concept of intervening act applies to Stephen in the case below. What's your take on it? I am finding it difficult because I feel like both parties are guilty of gross negligence manslaughter.
Stephen goes for a night out in a local nightclub, 'Dance-off'. When he gets there he find the club is full to capacity. However, as Stephen is a friend of Bill (who is the doorman at Dance-off), Bill turns a allows them in.
Once inside, Stephen finds it very difficult to move, but while pushing through a group, one of the people who is pushed by Stephen falls into Anna who in turn falls down. Stephen feels bad and tries to help her, but the crowd is pushing him back and he finds it too hard to get close, so he leaves her. Anna later dies in hospital. Had she received help earlier, she would have survived.
It's an intervening act, but appears to be a foreseeable intervening act. Keep in mind that not all legal minds agree on what is foreseeable or unforeseeable. Two lawyers, looking at the same facts, can disagree. We all can see that there is an intervening act though.
@@Learnlawbetter Thank You!
I thought intervening causes happen after defendant’s negligence? In these hypotheticals the intervening cause happens before
What if someone side swipe you on a two lane road but claims they where swerving to avoid another vehicle
Nice video. I'm looking forward to a product liability video! (hopefully in the very near future?) LOL.
One product liability video? That video would have to be over an hour long!
@@Learnlawbetter Prof. Baez, I think your videos are nice, manageable, chunks to include in my study. Thanks for them!
John is being chased by the defendant. The defendant is carrying a baseball bat. John runs across a divided highway to get away from the defendant. While doing so, John is hit and killed by a motorist on the highway. is he responsible?
Proximate cause changes a bit with intentional torts. So in your example the defendant would be liable.
@@Learnlawbetter how what makes him liable
@@Learnlawbetter how can proximate cause be proven in this case?
Proximate cause is measured through the foreseeable test. It is reasonably foreseeable that someone being chased with a baseball bat will attempt to escape. This could include running across a busy road.
Learn Law Better I was told that there was no proximate cause in this case