The tort of Negligence requires causation, the negligent act CAUSED the damage.
Causation usually needs to satisfy
(1) the negligent act was a but-for cause for the damage. That is, the negligent act has to be in the chain of events leading to the damage.
But-for cause can be many things, most of them remote. For example, you can say the dry-cleaner ruined my clothes, and that's why I was running late, and I got into accident. Dry cleaner's negligence was in the chain of events, therefore it is a but-for cause. But it is unfair to ask the dry cleaner to pay for car crash. This is why in addition to but-for requirement...
(2) the negligent act has to be a proximate cause to the damage. This is a flexible rule, use your common sense. Would anyone foresee a mistaken report of school attendance leads to auto accidents? There is no 1/0 answer, really depends on the facts of a particular case.
Life is too complicated for 1/0 answers in most cases.
Causation usually needs to satisfy
(1) the negligent act was a but-for cause for the damage. That is, the negligent act has to be in the chain of events leading to the damage.
But-for cause can be many things, most of them remote. For example, you can say the dry-cleaner ruined my clothes, and that's why I was running late, and I got into accident. Dry cleaner's negligence was in the chain of events, therefore it is a but-for cause. But it is unfair to ask the dry cleaner to pay for car crash. This is why in addition to but-for requirement...
(2) the negligent act has to be a proximate cause to the damage. This is a flexible rule, use your common sense. Would anyone foresee a mistaken report of school attendance leads to auto accidents? There is no 1/0 answer, really depends on the facts of a particular case.
Life is too complicated for 1/0 answers in most cases.
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”
