1486:"When defendants move for a determination that plaintiff’s harm is beyond the scope of liability as a matter of law, courts must initially consider all of the range of harms risked by the defendant’s conduct that the jury could find as the basis for determining that conduct tortious. Then the court can compare the plaintiff’s harm with the range of harms risked by the defendant to determine whether a reasonable jury might find the former among the latter." RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIAB. FOR PHYSICAL HARM § 29 cmt. d (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005).
813:
1014:(but for the rain, you would not have crashed your car – the rain is not morally or legally culpable but still constitutes a cause), there is a second test used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be a legally culpable cause of the harm. This test is called proximate cause, from the Latin
1197:
true causation, and to also include "proximate cause" in the chapter title in parentheses to help judges and lawyers understand the connection between the old and new terminology. The
Institute added that it "fervently hopes" the parenthetical will be unnecessary in a future fourth Restatement of Torts.
1196:
argued that proximate cause should be replaced with scope of liability. Chapter 6 of the
Restatement is titled "Scope of Liability (Proximate Cause)." It begins with a special note explaining the institute's decision to reframe the concept in terms of "scope of liability" because it does not involve
892:
is ineffective (see But-for test below). Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you would not have missed the train and would not have been mugged), a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally
1172:
incident), it was clear that mooring a boat improperly could lead to the risk of that boat drifting away and crashing into another boat, and that both boats could crash into a bridge, which collapsed and blocked the river, and in turn, the wreckage could flood the land adjacent to the river, as well
1152:
The doctrine of proximate cause is notoriously confusing. The doctrine is phrased in the language of causation, but in most of the cases in which proximate cause is actively litigated, there is not much real dispute that the defendant but-for caused the plaintiff's injury. The doctrine is actually
1125:
as the "scope-of-the-risk" test, the term "Risk Rule" was coined by the
University of Texas School of Law's Dean Robert Keeton. The rule is that “n actor’s liability is limited to those physical harms that result from the risks that made the actor’s conduct tortious.” Thus, the operative question is
1476:
The exact etymology of this hypothetical is difficult to trace. Adaptations are set forth and discussed in Joseph W. Glannon, The Law of Torts: Examples and
Explanations (3d ed. 2005) and John C. P. Goldberg, Anthony J. Sebok, and Benjamin C. Zipursky, Tort Law: Responsibilities and Redress (2004)
1138:
above the grill in his luncheonette. The story is that during the lunch rush, the can explodes, severely injuring the chef who is preparing food in the kitchen. The chef sues the owner for negligence. The chef may not recover. Storing rat poison above the grill was negligent because it involved the
1237:
If the evidence later shows that the wind blew off a building's roof and then water damage resulted only because there was no roof to prevent rain from entering, there would be coverage, but if the building was simultaneously flooded (i.e., because the rain caused a nearby body of water to rise or
1130:
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. The plaintiff argues that it is negligent to give a child a loaded gun and that such negligence caused the injury, but this argument fails, for the injury
1001:
product made by all the manufacturers joined in a lawsuit. The injury or illness is due to a design hazard, with each having been found to have sold the same type of product in a manner that made it unreasonably dangerous, there is inability to identify the specific manufacturer of the product or
1104:
The first element of the test is met if the injured person was a member of a class of people who could be expected to be put at risk of injury by the action. 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
1034:
The most common test of proximate cause under the
American legal system is foreseeability. It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a
1061:
Direct causation is a minority test, which addresses only the metaphysical concept of causation. It does not matter how foreseeable the result as long as what the negligent party's physical activity can be tied to what actually happened. The main thrust of direct causation is that there are no
1217:
event that immediately preceded the loss. Many insurers have attempted to contract around efficient proximate cause through the use of "anti-concurrent causation" (ACC) clauses, under which if a covered cause and a noncovered cause join to cause a loss, the loss is not covered.
1062:
intervening causes between an act and the resulting harm. An intervening cause has several requirements: it must 1) be independent of the original act, 2) be a voluntary human act or an abnormal natural event, and 3) occur in time between the original act and the harm.
1073:
The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's action increased the risk that the particular harm suffered by the plaintiff would occur. If the action were repeated, the likelihood of the harm would correspondingly increase. This is also called
1131:
did not result from the risk that made the conduct negligent. The risk that made the conduct negligent was the risk of the child accidentally firing the gun; the harm suffered could just as easily have resulted from handing the child an unloaded gun.
1086:
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. It is the strictest test of causation, made famous by
957:. Where an injury results from two separate acts of negligence, either of which would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both actors are liable. For example, two campers in different parts of the woods negligently leave their
1139:
risk that the chef might inadvertently mistake it for a spice and use it as an ingredient in a recipe. The explosion of the container and subsequent injury to the chef was not what made the chosen storage space risky.
893:
valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause (see
1112:
law. When it is used, it is used to consider the class of people injured, not the type of harm. The main criticism of this test is that it is preeminently concerned with culpability, rather than actual causation.
1153:
used by judges in a somewhat arbitrary fashion to limit the scope of the defendant's liability to a subset of the total class of potential plaintiffs who may have suffered some harm from the defendant's actions.
1143:
The notion is that it must be the risk associated with the negligence of the conduct that results in an injury, not some other risk invited by aspects of the conduct that in of themselves would not be negligent.
1126:"what were the particular risks that made an actor's conduct negligent?" If the injury suffered is not the result of one of those risks, there can be no recovery. Two examples will illustrate this principle:
965:
results, but the same amount of property damage would have resulted from either fire. Both campers are equally liable for all damage. A famous case establishing this principle in the United States is
872:
in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. (For example, but for running the
1002:
products that brought about the
Plaintiff's injury or illness and there are enough manufacturers of the fungible product joined in the lawsuit, to represent a substantial share of the market. Any
943:, forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian. This example obeys the
1161:
2387:
979:
holds that where two parties have acted negligently, but only one causes an injury to a third party, the burden shifts to the negligent parties to prove that they were
1459:
Benjamin C. Zipursky, Foreseeability in Breach, Duty and
Proximate Cause, 44 Wake F. L. Rev. 1247, 1253 (2009). The full text of this article is available online at
1245:
A minority of jurisdictions have ruled ACC clauses to be unenforceable as against public policy, but they are generally enforceable in the majority of jurisdictions.
2402:
1667:
1039:. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks a heavy object off a shelf behind them, which causes a blunt-force injury.
1647:
96:
1432:
See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIAB. FOR PHYSICAL HARM § 29 cmt. d (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 281 cmt. g (1965).
2397:
1773:
236:
1173:
as prevent any traffic from traversing the river until it had been cleared. But under proximate cause, the property owners adjacent to the river could
1045:
In the United
Kingdom, a "threefold test" of foreseeability of damage, proximity of relationship and reasonableness was established in the case of
2605:
2407:
171:
2392:
991:
lodged in his eye. Because it was impossible to tell which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury, the court held both hunters liable.
1662:
1093:
1294:
1213:, a court looks for the predominant cause which sets into motion the chain of events producing the loss, which may not necessarily be the
1608:
1065:
Direct causation is the only theory that addresses only causation and does not take into account the culpability of the original actor.
1803:
843:
868:
is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of
1732:
1534:
1798:
31:
2377:
1768:
1758:
1050:
1046:
562:
2382:
897:). For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.
1105:
driver who is distracted by another driver driving on the sidewalk, and consequently crashes into a utility pole, is not.
927:. Where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause an injury to a third party, each actor is liable. For example, a
2540:
1788:
1689:
352:
2357:
2054:
2000:
1674:
568:
1839:
2005:
1869:
1763:
342:
2084:
1973:
1783:
1684:
885:
881:
657:
506:
2457:
2209:
2079:
2059:
1727:
1679:
1303:
690:
674:
241:
201:
35:
2114:
2260:
2049:
1917:
1864:
1722:
1712:
1601:
1307:
555:
380:
347:
2352:
1985:
1813:
1373:
1359:
1193:
836:
751:
573:
484:
327:
272:
176:
71:
2367:
2253:
2182:
2037:
1922:
711:
685:
604:
494:
489:
451:
246:
206:
193:
1884:
2476:
2419:
2042:
2022:
1849:
1737:
1657:
183:
123:
1229:
and expressly excludes coverage for floods. The classic example of how ACC clauses work is where a
947:. The injury could have been avoided by the elimination of either act of negligence, thus each is a
2535:
2530:
2525:
2510:
2372:
2332:
2094:
2064:
1932:
1793:
1717:
1707:
928:
548:
542:
501:
438:
261:
62:
2578:
2571:
2483:
2362:
2287:
2104:
2069:
1980:
1937:
1907:
1879:
1874:
1844:
1818:
1642:
1594:
1222:
1181:), but not the owners of the boats or cargoes which could not move until the river was reopened (
791:
678:
609:
578:
469:
433:
409:
365:
148:
90:
1209:. Under this rule, in order to determine whether a loss resulted from a cause covered under an
1320:
2600:
2432:
2302:
2194:
2158:
2148:
2109:
2099:
2027:
2017:
1947:
1530:
1450:
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIAB. FOR PHYSICAL HARM § 29 (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005).
1258:
877:
829:
736:
731:
721:
716:
532:
511:
375:
321:
308:
256:
216:
2545:
2500:
2445:
2437:
2427:
2204:
2128:
1968:
1942:
1927:
1834:
1652:
1634:
1210:
1169:
1109:
1088:
726:
599:
527:
479:
428:
361:
303:
211:
188:
130:
118:
1460:
1299:
2557:
2520:
2496:
2292:
2272:
2231:
2226:
2173:
2168:
2032:
2012:
1889:
1854:
1269:
1226:
974:
869:
403:
332:
1238:
simply overwhelmed local sewers), an ACC clause would completely block coverage for the
2463:
2312:
1995:
1859:
1753:
1699:
781:
537:
419:
337:
139:
85:
80:
1411:
In re
Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd., 3 K.B. 560 (1921)
2594:
2266:
2187:
2135:
2074:
1912:
1778:
1576:
1242:
loss (even if the building owner could otherwise attribute damage to wind v. flood).
1165:
1098:
873:
746:
621:
1399:
1134:
Another example familiar to law students is that of the restaurant owner who stores
2515:
2327:
2322:
2282:
2243:
1386:
1254:
1036:
903:
799:
786:
776:
741:
695:
281:
2550:
2505:
2178:
1963:
1264:
1135:
1011:
998:
812:
652:
385:
251:
166:
2449:
2441:
2317:
2238:
2199:
2143:
1527:
Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for
Physical and Emotional Harm
940:
817:
761:
664:
616:
286:
227:
153:
45:
17:
2491:
2307:
2277:
2248:
1990:
1617:
1230:
988:
861:
795:
983:
the cause of the injury. In that case, two hunters negligently fired their
2215:
1121:
Referred to by the Reporters of the Second and Third Restatements of the
962:
958:
888:
condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the
771:
631:
394:
291:
113:
2153:
2089:
1274:
1174:
1003:
984:
936:
932:
626:
594:
474:
296:
920:
is complicated, or the test is ineffective. The primary examples are:
1808:
1190:
Restatement (Third), Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm
669:
636:
2468:
900:
The formal Latin term for "but for" (cause-in-fact) causation, is
446:
1529:. St. Paul: American Law Institute Publishers. pp. 492–493.
1010:
Since but-for causation is very easy to show and does not assign
2163:
1122:
460:
53:
1590:
1441:
ROBERT E. KEETON, LEGAL CAUSE IN THE LAW OF TORTS 9–10 (1963).
857:
1221:
ACC clauses frequently come into play in jurisdictions where
1042:
This is also known as the "extraordinary in hindsight" rule.
1586:
1389:, UKHL 2, delivered 8 February 1990, accessed 3 January 2023
30:
For the notion of proximate cause in other disciplines, see
1402:, UKSC 20, delivered 10 April 2019, accessed 3 January 2023
27:
Event deemed by law to be the effective cause of an injury
1006:
would then be divided according to the market share ratio.
1026:
There are several competing theories of proximate cause.
1461:
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.44.1247.pdf
1321:"What is "proximate cause"? - Rottenstein Law Group LLP"
1400:
Vedanta Resources PLC & Anor v Lungowe & Ors
1205:
A related doctrine is the insurance law doctrine of
2418:
2343:
2127:
1956:
1898:
1827:
1746:
1698:
1633:
1624:
1552:, 499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2007) (surveying cases).
1108:The HWR test is no longer much used, outside of
1602:
1049:(1990) and adopted in the litigation between
837:
8:
1233:hits a building with wind and flood hazards
1051:Lungowe and others and Vedanta Resources plc
97:Intentional infliction of emotional distress
1630:
1609:
1595:
1587:
880:would not have occurred.) The action is a
844:
830:
237:Negligent infliction of emotional distress
40:
1496:PPG Indus., Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
1286:
1188:Therefore, in the final version of the
1035:baseball at someone could cause them a
997:. Injury or illness is occasioned by a
987:in the direction of their guide, and a
759:
703:
644:
586:
519:
459:
418:
393:
360:
271:
226:
138:
105:
70:
52:
1567:The Metaphysics of Causal Intervention
1513:Kinsman Transit Co. v. City of Buffalo
1421:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
1295:March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd
7:
1094:Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
916:A few circumstances exist where the
34:. For causation in English law, see
1550:Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
1511:, 338 F.2d 708 (2nd Cir. 1964) and
931:negligently leaves the cover off a
1648:Accidental death and dismemberment
971:In the United States, the rule of
894:
25:
1774:Directors and officers liability
1581:The Rationale of Proximate Cause
811:
32:Proximate and ultimate causation
1525:American Law Institute (2010).
1515:, 388 F.2d 821 (2nd Cir. 1968).
1387:Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
1156:For example, in the two famous
563:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
2606:Legal doctrines and principles
1498:, 20 Cal. 4th 310, 316 (1999).
1398:United Kingdom Supreme Court,
1:
1467:, 113 A. 2d 147 (Conn. 1955).
1374:Restatement (Second) of Torts
1053:(Supreme Court ruling 2019).
673:(term used for torts in some
2541:Savings and loan association
1069:Risk enhancement/causal link
884:condition, but may not be a
1974:Insurance-linked securities
569:Joint and several liability
2622:
1663:Total permanent disability
1423:, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928).
1225:does not normally include
955:Sufficient combined causes
343:Comparative responsibility
29:
2566:
2403:Health insurance coverage
1668:Business overhead expense
1509:In re Kinsman Transit Co.
1348:, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948).
1207:efficient proximate cause
1201:Efficient proximate cause
1192:, published in 2010, the
658:Non-economic damages caps
1804:Protection and indemnity
691:Private attorney general
645:Other topics in tort law
273:Principles of negligence
202:Alienation of affections
36:Causation in English law
2261:Explanation of benefits
1733:Variable universal life
556:Volenti non fit injuria
381:Ultrahazardous activity
348:Contributory negligence
2398:Health insurance costs
1799:Professional liability
1465:Accord Lubitz v. Wells
1360:Sindell v. Abbott Labs
1194:American Law Institute
574:Market share liability
507:Shopkeeper's privilege
485:Statute of limitations
328:Restitutio ad integrum
177:Intrusion on seclusion
72:Trespass to the person
2254:Out-of-pocket expense
2115:Workers' compensation
1769:Collateral protection
1759:Business interruption
1300:[1991] HCA 12
995:Market share evidence
686:Conflict of tort laws
452:Tortious interference
207:Criminal conversation
194:Malicious prosecution
2477:Corpus Juris Civilis
1168:jurisdiction over a
1097:case under New York
1082:Harm within the risk
951:cause of the injury.
939:negligently clips a
184:Breach of confidence
2536:Rochdale Principles
2531:Mutual savings bank
2526:Mutual organization
2511:Cooperative banking
2428:Mesopotamian banker
1708:Longevity insurance
929:construction worker
679:mixed legal systems
549:Respondeat superior
543:Vicarious liability
502:Defence of property
439:Insurance bad faith
353:Attractive nuisance
172:Invasion of privacy
2288:Insurable interest
1789:Payment protection
1690:Payment protection
1565:Michael S. Moore,
1223:property insurance
1037:blunt-force injury
579:Transferred intent
470:Assumption of risk
434:Restraint of trade
410:Rylands v Fletcher
242:Employment-related
91:False imprisonment
2588:
2587:
2433:Code of Hammurabi
2408:Vehicle insurance
2303:Replacement value
2195:Actual cash value
2159:Adverse selection
2149:Actuarial science
2123:
2122:
2055:Kidnap and ransom
2028:Extended warranty
1675:Income protection
1259:but-for causation
1235:at the same time.
967:Corey v. Havener.
935:, and a careless
925:Concurrent causes
854:
853:
727:England and Wales
682:
533:Last clear chance
528:Intentional torts
512:Neutral reportage
495:Defense of others
443:
376:Product liability
322:Res ipsa loquitur
309:Reasonable person
217:Breach of promise
66:
16:(Redirected from
2613:
2546:Social insurance
2501:Friendly society
2393:Health insurance
2221:Short rate table
1969:Catastrophe bond
1870:Lenders mortgage
1631:
1611:
1604:
1597:
1588:
1572:
1553:
1547:
1541:
1540:
1522:
1516:
1505:
1499:
1493:
1487:
1484:
1478:
1474:
1468:
1457:
1451:
1448:
1442:
1439:
1433:
1430:
1424:
1418:
1412:
1409:
1403:
1396:
1390:
1385:House of Lords,
1383:
1377:
1370:
1364:
1355:
1349:
1343:
1337:
1336:, 182 Mass. 250.
1334:Corey v. Havener
1331:
1325:
1324:
1317:
1311:
1291:
1211:insurance policy
1089:Benjamin Cardozo
1076:foreseeable risk
1057:Direct causation
1047:Caparo v Dickman
846:
839:
832:
816:
815:
672:
441:
304:Standard of care
189:Abuse of process
99:
60:
41:
21:
2621:
2620:
2616:
2615:
2614:
2612:
2611:
2610:
2591:
2590:
2589:
2584:
2562:
2558:Insurance cycle
2521:Fraternal order
2414:
2345:
2339:
2298:Proximate cause
2293:Insurance fraud
2273:General average
2232:Claims adjuster
2174:Risk management
2169:Risk assessment
2133:
2130:
2119:
2085:Prize indemnity
1952:
1900:
1894:
1823:
1784:Over-redemption
1742:
1694:
1685:National health
1626:
1620:
1615:
1570:
1562:
1560:Further reading
1557:
1556:
1548:
1544:
1537:
1524:
1523:
1519:
1506:
1502:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1481:
1475:
1471:
1458:
1454:
1449:
1445:
1440:
1436:
1431:
1427:
1419:
1415:
1410:
1406:
1397:
1393:
1384:
1380:
1371:
1367:
1356:
1352:
1346:Summers v. Tice
1344:
1340:
1332:
1328:
1319:
1318:
1314:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1251:
1227:flood insurance
1203:
1160:cases from the
1158:Kinsman Transit
1150:
1119:
1117:The "Risk Rule"
1084:
1071:
1059:
1032:
1024:
975:Summers v. Tice
914:
866:proximate cause
850:
810:
704:By jurisdiction
404:Public nuisance
333:Rescue doctrine
316:Proximate cause
228:Negligent torts
140:Dignitary torts
95:
39:
28:
23:
22:
15:
12:
11:
5:
2619:
2617:
2609:
2608:
2603:
2593:
2592:
2586:
2585:
2583:
2582:
2579:List of topics
2575:
2567:
2564:
2563:
2561:
2560:
2555:
2554:
2553:
2548:
2543:
2538:
2533:
2528:
2523:
2518:
2513:
2508:
2494:
2489:
2488:
2487:
2473:
2472:
2471:
2466:
2464:Burial society
2454:
2453:
2452:
2446:§235–238; §240
2438:§100–105; §126
2430:
2424:
2422:
2416:
2415:
2413:
2412:
2411:
2410:
2405:
2400:
2395:
2390:
2388:Climate change
2380:
2378:United Kingdom
2375:
2370:
2365:
2360:
2355:
2349:
2347:
2341:
2340:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2335:
2325:
2323:Underinsurance
2320:
2315:
2313:Self-insurance
2310:
2305:
2300:
2295:
2290:
2285:
2280:
2275:
2270:
2263:
2258:
2257:
2256:
2251:
2246:
2236:
2235:
2234:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2219:
2207:
2202:
2197:
2192:
2191:
2190:
2185:
2176:
2171:
2166:
2161:
2156:
2146:
2140:
2138:
2125:
2124:
2121:
2120:
2118:
2117:
2112:
2107:
2102:
2097:
2092:
2087:
2082:
2080:Political risk
2077:
2072:
2067:
2062:
2060:Legal expenses
2057:
2052:
2047:
2046:
2045:
2035:
2030:
2025:
2020:
2015:
2010:
2009:
2008:
2003:
1993:
1988:
1983:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1971:
1960:
1958:
1954:
1953:
1951:
1950:
1945:
1940:
1935:
1930:
1925:
1920:
1915:
1910:
1904:
1902:
1896:
1895:
1893:
1892:
1887:
1882:
1877:
1872:
1867:
1862:
1857:
1852:
1847:
1842:
1840:Builder's risk
1837:
1831:
1829:
1825:
1824:
1822:
1821:
1816:
1811:
1806:
1801:
1796:
1791:
1786:
1781:
1776:
1771:
1766:
1764:Business owner
1761:
1756:
1750:
1748:
1744:
1743:
1741:
1740:
1735:
1730:
1728:Universal life
1725:
1720:
1715:
1710:
1704:
1702:
1696:
1695:
1693:
1692:
1687:
1682:
1680:Long-term care
1677:
1672:
1671:
1670:
1665:
1655:
1650:
1645:
1639:
1637:
1628:
1622:
1621:
1616:
1614:
1613:
1606:
1599:
1591:
1585:
1584:
1574:
1561:
1558:
1555:
1554:
1542:
1535:
1517:
1500:
1488:
1479:
1469:
1452:
1443:
1434:
1425:
1413:
1404:
1391:
1378:
1365:
1350:
1338:
1326:
1312:
1285:
1284:
1282:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1272:
1267:
1262:
1250:
1247:
1202:
1199:
1149:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1132:
1118:
1115:
1083:
1080:
1070:
1067:
1058:
1055:
1031:
1030:Foreseeability
1028:
1023:
1020:
1008:
1007:
992:
969:
961:unattended. A
952:
918:"but for" test
913:
910:
852:
851:
849:
848:
841:
834:
826:
823:
822:
821:
820:
818:Law portal
805:
804:
803:
802:
789:
784:
779:
774:
766:
765:
757:
756:
755:
754:
749:
744:
739:
734:
732:European Union
729:
724:
719:
714:
706:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
693:
688:
683:
667:
662:
661:
660:
647:
646:
642:
641:
640:
639:
634:
629:
624:
619:
614:
613:
612:
607:
602:
589:
588:
584:
583:
582:
581:
576:
571:
566:
559:
552:
545:
540:
538:Eggshell skull
535:
530:
522:
521:
517:
516:
515:
514:
509:
504:
499:
498:
497:
487:
482:
477:
472:
464:
463:
457:
456:
455:
454:
449:
444:
442:(American law)
436:
431:
423:
422:
420:Economic torts
416:
415:
414:
413:
406:
398:
397:
391:
390:
389:
388:
383:
378:
370:
369:
358:
357:
356:
355:
350:
345:
340:
338:Duty to rescue
335:
330:
325:
318:
313:
312:
311:
301:
300:
299:
294:
289:
276:
275:
269:
268:
267:
266:
265:
264:
259:
249:
244:
239:
231:
230:
224:
223:
222:
221:
220:
219:
214:
209:
204:
196:
191:
186:
181:
180:
179:
169:
164:
163:
162:
159:
151:
143:
142:
136:
135:
134:
133:
128:
127:
126:
121:
108:
107:
106:Property torts
103:
102:
101:
100:
93:
88:
83:
75:
74:
68:
67:
57:
56:
50:
49:
26:
24:
18:Foreseeability
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2618:
2607:
2604:
2602:
2599:
2598:
2596:
2581:
2580:
2576:
2574:
2573:
2569:
2568:
2565:
2559:
2556:
2552:
2549:
2547:
2544:
2542:
2539:
2537:
2534:
2532:
2529:
2527:
2524:
2522:
2519:
2517:
2514:
2512:
2509:
2507:
2504:
2503:
2502:
2498:
2495:
2493:
2490:
2486:
2485:
2481:
2480:
2479:
2478:
2474:
2470:
2467:
2465:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2459:
2455:
2451:
2447:
2443:
2439:
2436:
2435:
2434:
2431:
2429:
2426:
2425:
2423:
2421:
2417:
2409:
2406:
2404:
2401:
2399:
2396:
2394:
2391:
2389:
2386:
2385:
2384:
2383:United States
2381:
2379:
2376:
2374:
2371:
2369:
2366:
2364:
2361:
2359:
2356:
2354:
2351:
2350:
2348:
2342:
2334:
2331:
2330:
2329:
2326:
2324:
2321:
2319:
2316:
2314:
2311:
2309:
2306:
2304:
2301:
2299:
2296:
2294:
2291:
2289:
2286:
2284:
2281:
2279:
2276:
2274:
2271:
2269:
2268:
2267:Force majeure
2264:
2262:
2259:
2255:
2252:
2250:
2247:
2245:
2242:
2241:
2240:
2237:
2233:
2230:
2229:
2228:
2225:
2220:
2218:
2217:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2208:
2206:
2203:
2201:
2198:
2196:
2193:
2189:
2188:Value of life
2186:
2184:
2180:
2177:
2175:
2172:
2170:
2167:
2165:
2162:
2160:
2157:
2155:
2152:
2151:
2150:
2147:
2145:
2142:
2141:
2139:
2137:
2132:
2126:
2116:
2113:
2111:
2108:
2106:
2103:
2101:
2098:
2096:
2093:
2091:
2088:
2086:
2083:
2081:
2078:
2076:
2073:
2071:
2068:
2066:
2063:
2061:
2058:
2056:
2053:
2051:
2050:Interest rate
2048:
2044:
2041:
2040:
2039:
2036:
2034:
2031:
2029:
2026:
2024:
2021:
2019:
2016:
2014:
2011:
2007:
2004:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1994:
1992:
1989:
1987:
1984:
1982:
1979:
1975:
1972:
1970:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1962:
1961:
1959:
1955:
1949:
1946:
1944:
1941:
1939:
1936:
1934:
1931:
1929:
1926:
1924:
1921:
1919:
1918:Inland marine
1916:
1914:
1913:GAP insurance
1911:
1909:
1906:
1905:
1903:
1901:Communication
1897:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1883:
1881:
1878:
1876:
1873:
1871:
1868:
1866:
1863:
1861:
1858:
1856:
1853:
1851:
1848:
1846:
1843:
1841:
1838:
1836:
1833:
1832:
1830:
1826:
1820:
1817:
1815:
1812:
1810:
1807:
1805:
1802:
1800:
1797:
1795:
1792:
1790:
1787:
1785:
1782:
1780:
1777:
1775:
1772:
1770:
1767:
1765:
1762:
1760:
1757:
1755:
1752:
1751:
1749:
1745:
1739:
1736:
1734:
1731:
1729:
1726:
1724:
1723:Unitised fund
1721:
1719:
1716:
1714:
1713:Mortgage life
1711:
1709:
1706:
1705:
1703:
1701:
1697:
1691:
1688:
1686:
1683:
1681:
1678:
1676:
1673:
1669:
1666:
1664:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1656:
1654:
1651:
1649:
1646:
1644:
1641:
1640:
1638:
1636:
1632:
1629:
1623:
1619:
1612:
1607:
1605:
1600:
1598:
1593:
1592:
1589:
1582:
1578:
1577:Leon A. Green
1575:
1571:calif l. rev.
1568:
1564:
1563:
1559:
1551:
1546:
1543:
1538:
1536:9780314801340
1532:
1528:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1504:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1489:
1483:
1480:
1477:among others.
1473:
1470:
1466:
1462:
1456:
1453:
1447:
1444:
1438:
1435:
1429:
1426:
1422:
1417:
1414:
1408:
1405:
1401:
1395:
1392:
1388:
1382:
1379:
1375:
1369:
1366:
1362:
1361:
1354:
1351:
1347:
1342:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1327:
1322:
1316:
1313:
1309:
1305:
1302:, (1991) 171
1301:
1297:
1296:
1290:
1287:
1280:
1276:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1256:
1253:
1252:
1248:
1246:
1243:
1241:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1224:
1219:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1200:
1198:
1195:
1191:
1186:
1184:
1180:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1163:
1159:
1154:
1147:
1145:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1100:
1096:
1095:
1090:
1081:
1079:
1077:
1068:
1066:
1063:
1056:
1054:
1052:
1048:
1043:
1040:
1038:
1029:
1027:
1022:Other factors
1021:
1019:
1017:
1016:proxima causa
1013:
1005:
1000:
996:
993:
990:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
970:
968:
964:
960:
956:
953:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
930:
926:
923:
922:
921:
919:
911:
909:
907:
906:
905:
898:
896:
895:Other factors
891:
887:
883:
879:
875:
871:
867:
863:
859:
847:
842:
840:
835:
833:
828:
827:
825:
824:
819:
814:
809:
808:
807:
806:
801:
797:
793:
790:
788:
785:
783:
780:
778:
775:
773:
770:
769:
768:
767:
763:
758:
753:
752:United States
750:
748:
745:
743:
740:
738:
735:
733:
730:
728:
725:
723:
720:
718:
715:
713:
710:
709:
708:
707:
702:
697:
694:
692:
689:
687:
684:
680:
676:
671:
668:
666:
663:
659:
656:
655:
654:
651:
650:
649:
648:
643:
638:
635:
633:
630:
628:
625:
623:
620:
618:
615:
611:
608:
606:
603:
601:
598:
597:
596:
593:
592:
591:
590:
585:
580:
577:
575:
572:
570:
567:
565:
564:
560:
558:
557:
553:
551:
550:
546:
544:
541:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
525:
524:
523:
518:
513:
510:
508:
505:
503:
500:
496:
493:
492:
491:
488:
486:
483:
481:
478:
476:
473:
471:
468:
467:
466:
465:
462:
458:
453:
450:
448:
445:
440:
437:
435:
432:
430:
427:
426:
425:
424:
421:
417:
412:
411:
407:
405:
402:
401:
400:
399:
396:
392:
387:
384:
382:
379:
377:
374:
373:
372:
371:
367:
363:
359:
354:
351:
349:
346:
344:
341:
339:
336:
334:
331:
329:
326:
324:
323:
319:
317:
314:
310:
307:
306:
305:
302:
298:
295:
293:
290:
288:
285:
284:
283:
280:
279:
278:
277:
274:
270:
263:
260:
258:
255:
254:
253:
250:
248:
245:
243:
240:
238:
235:
234:
233:
232:
229:
225:
218:
215:
213:
210:
208:
205:
203:
200:
199:
198:Sexual torts
197:
195:
192:
190:
187:
185:
182:
178:
175:
174:
173:
170:
168:
165:
160:
157:
156:
155:
152:
150:
149:Appropriation
147:
146:
145:
144:
141:
137:
132:
129:
125:
122:
120:
117:
116:
115:
112:
111:
110:
109:
104:
98:
94:
92:
89:
87:
84:
82:
79:
78:
77:
76:
73:
69:
64:
59:
58:
55:
51:
47:
43:
42:
37:
33:
19:
2577:
2570:
2516:Credit union
2482:
2475:
2456:
2328:Underwriting
2297:
2283:Insurability
2265:
2244:Co-insurance
2214:
2210:Cancellation
2001:Catastrophic
1986:Climate risk
1814:Trade credit
1580:
1566:
1549:
1545:
1526:
1520:
1512:
1508:
1503:
1495:
1491:
1482:
1472:
1464:
1455:
1446:
1437:
1428:
1420:
1416:
1407:
1394:
1381:
1368:
1358:
1353:
1345:
1341:
1333:
1329:
1315:
1310:(Australia).
1293:
1289:
1255:Sine qua non
1244:
1239:
1234:
1220:
1214:
1206:
1204:
1189:
1187:
1182:
1178:
1164:(exercising
1157:
1155:
1151:
1142:
1123:Law of Torts
1120:
1107:
1103:
1092:
1085:
1075:
1072:
1064:
1060:
1044:
1041:
1033:
1025:
1015:
1009:
994:
980:
973:
972:
966:
954:
948:
945:but for test
944:
924:
917:
915:
912:But-for test
904:sine qua non
902:
901:
899:
890:but-for test
889:
865:
855:
777:Criminal law
696:Class action
561:
554:
547:
490:Self-defense
408:
386:Deep pockets
320:
315:
282:Duty of care
44:Part of the
2551:Trade union
2506:Cooperative
2179:Uncertainty
2038:Index-based
2006:Multi-peril
1964:Reinsurance
1923:Public auto
1828:Residential
1573:827 (2000).
1265:Four causes
1162:2nd Circuit
1148:Controversy
1012:culpability
963:forest fire
908:causation.
653:Tort reform
287:Trespassers
252:Malpractice
247:Entrustment
167:False light
2595:Categories
2346:by country
2344:Insurance
2318:Total loss
2239:Deductible
2200:Cash value
2144:Act of God
2129:Insurance
2043:Parametric
2023:Expatriate
1899:Transport/
1865:Landlords'
1850:Earthquake
1738:Whole life
1658:Disability
1308:High Court
1281:References
1183:Kinsman II
1136:rat poison
941:pedestrian
886:sufficient
762:common law
665:Quasi-tort
617:Injunction
610:Incidental
429:Conspiracy
154:Defamation
131:Conversion
46:common law
2492:Syndicate
2458:Collegium
2353:Australia
2308:Risk pool
2278:Indemnity
2249:Copayment
2183:Knightian
2095:Terrorism
2065:Liability
1933:Satellite
1794:Pollution
1718:Term life
1627:insurance
1625:Types of
1618:Insurance
1270:Causation
1231:hurricane
1179:Kinsman I
1166:admiralty
959:campfires
882:necessary
878:collision
874:red light
870:causation
862:insurance
772:Contracts
712:Australia
520:Liability
480:Necessity
368:liability
292:Licensees
212:Seduction
2601:Tort law
2572:Category
2450:§275–277
2368:Pakistan
2216:Pro rata
2105:War risk
2070:No-fault
1981:Casualty
1938:Shipping
1908:Aviation
1885:Renters'
1880:Property
1875:Mortgage
1845:Contents
1819:Umbrella
1779:Fidelity
1747:Business
1643:Accident
1249:See also
1170:New York
1110:New York
999:fungible
985:shotguns
787:Property
782:Evidence
632:Replevin
600:Punitive
587:Remedies
461:Defences
395:Nuisance
366:absolute
297:Invitees
124:chattels
114:Trespass
54:Tort law
2497:Benefit
2484:Digesta
2420:History
2154:Actuary
2110:Weather
2100:Tuition
2090:Takaful
2018:Deposit
1948:Vehicle
1583:(1927).
1275:Pretext
1004:damages
949:but for
933:manhole
800:estates
627:Detinue
622:Tracing
605:Special
595:Damages
475:Consent
262:medical
158:Slander
86:Battery
81:Assault
63:Outline
2373:Serbia
2333:Profit
2205:Broker
2131:policy
1943:Travel
1928:Marine
1835:Boiler
1809:Surety
1653:Dental
1635:Health
1533:
1240:entire
989:pellet
937:driver
876:, the
798:, and
796:trusts
760:Other
747:Taiwan
717:Canada
670:Delict
637:Trover
362:Strict
48:series
2469:Guild
2363:India
2358:China
2227:Claim
2033:Group
2013:Cyber
1991:Crime
1957:Other
1890:Title
1855:Flood
1569:, 88
1306:506,
1298:
1101:law.
1099:state
792:Wills
764:areas
742:Japan
737:India
722:China
675:civil
447:Fraud
257:legal
161:Libel
2442:§234
2164:Risk
2134:and
1996:Crop
1860:Home
1754:Bond
1700:Life
1531:ISBN
1507:See
1372:See
1357:See
1215:last
864:, a
860:and
677:and
364:and
119:land
2136:law
2075:Pet
1463:.
1304:CLR
1185:).
1175:sue
1091:in
981:not
858:law
856:In
2597::
2448:;
2444:;
2440:;
1579:,
1078:.
1018:.
794:,
2499:/
2181:/
1610:e
1603:t
1596:v
1539:.
1376:.
1363:.
1323:.
1261:)
1257:(
1177:(
845:e
838:t
831:v
681:)
65:)
61:(
38:.
20:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.