Black-letter propositions
- 01
Foreseeable type of harm and plaintiff generally remain within scope even when manner or extent is unusual.
- 02
Responsive rescue, medical negligence, disease, and ordinary negligence are often foreseeable interventions.
- 03
Extraordinary intentional or criminal acts can supersede unless the duty was designed to guard against them.
- 04
The eggshell-plaintiff rule imposes liability for unforeseeable extent once the type of personal injury is foreseeable.
- 05
Rescue doctrine treats danger as inviting rescue and can link rescuer injury to the original tortfeasor.
Use this attack sequence under time
Frame the issue
Define risks that made conduct negligent.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Match actual harm to those risks.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Classify intervention as responsive, coincidental, intentional, or extraordinary.
Resolve the next checkpoint
Apply eggshell only to extent, not type.
Finish the conclusion
Analyze each plaintiff separately.
Common wrong turns
- Unforeseeable severity does not cut off damages.
- Criminal conduct is not automatically superseding.
- A coincidental force can supersede when unrelated to the risk.
Worked example
A negligently injured patient receives ordinary negligent treatment that worsens the same injury.
Medical negligence is a foreseeable response, so the original actor remains liable for the aggravated harm, though the provider can also be liable.
Practice this topic
Proximate and intervening causes
Cornell describes a proximate cause as an actual cause that is also legally sufficient to support liability. It says the likelihood increases as the cause becomes more direct and more necessary, and it gives foreseeability and the substantial factor test as common tests. Its negligence summary says one way to assess proximate cause is foreseeability, with the example of a rock thrown from a balcony that strikes a passerby, and that plaintiff conduct and intervening factors can affect the analysis.
An intervening cause is an event after the defendant's dangerous act and before the harm that can break the chain of causation, so the original actor may no longer be responsible because the act is no longer the proximate cause.
Superseding cause
Cornell's page on superseding cause refers readers to intervening cause, which means the two terms are analyzed together. Ask whether the later event was foreseeable, whether it was independent of the defendant's conduct, and whether it changes the legal significance of the earlier act.
The tort summaries do not state a rule for pre-existing vulnerabilities, so apply your course's rule on the extent of harm when the plaintiff was unusually susceptible.
Cornell's intervening-cause page uses a criminal example in which a defendant punched a victim who hit his head on a car and the pavement, and it asks whether the later events broke the chain. Apply the same method: list each event between the act and the harm, mark which were foreseeable, and decide whether any independently caused the injury.
Frequently asked questions
What is the controlling rule for proximate cause, intervening forces, and eggshell injuries?+
Proximate cause covers harms within the negligent risk, ordinarily including rescue and medical response, and takes a physically vulnerable plaintiff as found.
How should I analyze proximate cause, intervening forces, and eggshell injuries on the bar exam?+
Define risks that made conduct negligent. Match actual harm to those risks. Apply eggshell only to extent, not type. Analyze each plaintiff separately.
What is proximate cause?+
An actual cause that is also legally sufficient to support liability, since the law does not attach liability to every actor responsible for an injury, according to Cornell.
What is an intervening cause?+
An event after the defendant's dangerous act and before the harm that can break the chain of causation and relieve the original actor.
How does Cornell treat superseding cause?+
It refers readers to the entry on intervening cause, so the two terms are analyzed together when a later event may break the chain of causation.
Can plaintiff conduct affect proximate cause?+
Yes. Cornell's negligence summary says plaintiff conduct and intervening factors can affect the proximate cause analysis.