1475:"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).
802:
1003:(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
1186:
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.
1185:
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
881:
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
1161:
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
1141:
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
1114:
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
1465:
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)
1127:
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
1226:
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
1119:
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
990:
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
1093:
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
1023:
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
1050:
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
1206:
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.
1051:
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.
1062:
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
1120:
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.
1075:
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
946:. 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
1128:
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.
882:
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
1101:
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.
1142:
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.
1132:
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.
1115:"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:
954:
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
861:
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
991:
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
932:, 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
968:
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
1448:
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
1234:
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.
1028:. 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.
1150:
1421:
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).
1162:
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
2376:
1034:
In the United
Kingdom, a "threefold test" of foreseeability of damage, proximity of relationship and reasonableness was established in the case of
2391:
1656:
980:
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.
1636:
85:
1202:, a court looks for the predominant cause which sets into motion the chain of events producing the loss, which may not necessarily be the
2386:
1054:
Direct causation is the only theory that addresses only causation and does not take into account the culpability of the original actor.
1762:
225:
857:
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
2594:
2396:
160:
2381:
886:). 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.
1651:
1283:
1082:
1094:
driver who is distracted by another driver driving on the sidewalk, and consequently crashes into a utility pole, is not.
916:. Where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause an injury to a third party, each actor is liable. For example, a
1597:
1792:
832:
1721:
1523:
1787:
20:
2366:
1757:
1747:
1039:
1035:
551:
2371:
483:
2529:
1777:
1678:
341:
374:
2346:
2043:
1989:
1828:
1663:
557:
1994:
1858:
1752:
331:
2073:
1962:
1772:
1673:
874:
870:
646:
495:
1218:
and expressly excludes coverage for floods. The classic example of how ACC clauses work is where a
936:. The injury could have been avoided by the elimination of either act of negligence, thus each is a
2446:
2198:
2103:
2068:
2048:
1716:
1668:
1292:
679:
663:
230:
190:
24:
2567:
2249:
2038:
1906:
1853:
1711:
1701:
1590:
1296:
1170:), but not the owners of the boats or cargoes which could not move until the river was reopened (
544:
369:
336:
1198:. Under this rule, in order to determine whether a loss resulted from a cause covered under an
2341:
1974:
1802:
1362:
1348:
1309:
1182:
825:
740:
562:
473:
316:
261:
165:
60:
1439:
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIAB. FOR PHYSICAL HARM § 29 (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005).
2356:
2242:
2171:
2026:
1911:
1873:
700:
674:
593:
478:
440:
235:
195:
182:
2465:
2408:
2031:
2011:
1838:
1726:
1646:
1449:
1288:
172:
112:
8:
2524:
2519:
2514:
2499:
2361:
2321:
2083:
2053:
1921:
1782:
1706:
1696:
917:
537:
531:
490:
427:
250:
51:
1979:
1227:
simply overwhelmed local sewers), an ACC clause would completely block coverage for the
2560:
2472:
2351:
2276:
2093:
2058:
1969:
1926:
1896:
1868:
1863:
1833:
1807:
1631:
1583:
1211:
780:
667:
598:
567:
458:
422:
398:
354:
137:
79:
1400:
In re
Arbitration Between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co. Ltd., 3 K.B. 560 (1921)
2589:
2421:
2291:
2183:
2147:
2137:
2098:
2088:
2016:
2006:
1936:
1519:
1247:
1231:
loss (even if the building owner could otherwise attribute damage to wind v. flood).
866:
818:
725:
720:
710:
705:
521:
500:
364:
310:
297:
245:
205:
1388:
1123:
Another example familiar to law students is that of the restaurant owner who stores
2534:
2489:
2434:
2426:
2416:
2193:
2117:
1957:
1931:
1916:
1823:
1641:
1623:
1375:
1199:
1158:
1098:
1077:
735:
715:
588:
516:
468:
417:
350:
292:
200:
177:
119:
107:
2546:
2509:
2485:
2281:
2261:
2220:
2215:
2162:
2157:
2021:
2001:
1878:
1843:
1258:
1215:
963:
858:
730:
392:
321:
2452:
2301:
1984:
1848:
1742:
1688:
770:
526:
408:
326:
128:
74:
69:
1516:
Restatement of the Law Third, Torts: Liability for
Physical and Emotional Harm
2583:
2255:
2176:
2124:
2063:
1901:
1767:
1565:
1154:
1087:
862:
610:
2504:
2316:
2311:
2271:
2232:
1243:
1025:
972:
the cause of the injury. In that case, two hunters negligently fired their
892:
788:
775:
765:
684:
270:
2539:
2494:
2167:
1952:
1253:
1124:
1110:
Referred to by the Reporters of the Second and Third Restatements of the
1000:
987:
877:
condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the
641:
240:
155:
2438:
2430:
2306:
2227:
2188:
2132:
929:
806:
750:
653:
605:
275:
216:
142:
34:
909:
is complicated, or the test is ineffective. The primary examples are:
2480:
2296:
2266:
2237:
1606:
1219:
1179:
Restatement (Third), Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm
977:
850:
784:
801:
449:
2204:
951:
947:
760:
620:
383:
280:
102:
889:
The formal Latin term for "but for" (cause-in-fact) causation, is
2142:
2078:
1518:. St. Paul: American Law Institute Publishers. pp. 492–493.
1263:
1163:
999:
Since but-for causation is very easy to show and does not assign
992:
973:
925:
921:
615:
583:
463:
285:
1797:
658:
625:
1430:
ROBERT E. KEETON, LEGAL CAUSE IN THE LAW OF TORTS 9–10 (1963).
2457:
1210:
ACC clauses frequently come into play in jurisdictions where
1031:
This is also known as the "extraordinary in hindsight" rule.
435:
1575:
1378:, UKHL 2, delivered 8 February 1990, accessed 3 January 2023
19:
For the notion of proximate cause in other disciplines, see
2152:
1391:, UKSC 20, delivered 10 April 2019, accessed 3 January 2023
1111:
42:
16:
Event deemed by law to be the effective cause of an injury
995:
would then be divided according to the market share ratio.
1015:
There are several competing theories of proximate cause.
846:
1450:
http://lawreview.law.wfu.edu/documents/issue.44.1247.pdf
1310:"What is "proximate cause"? - Rottenstein Law Group LLP"
1513:
1389:
Vedanta Resources PLC & Anor v Lungowe & Ors
1194:
A related doctrine is the insurance law doctrine of
1541:, 499 F.3d 419 (5th Cir. 2007) (surveying cases).
2581:
1097:The HWR test is no longer much used, outside of
1057:
1276:
1591:
1038:(1990) and adopted in the litigation between
826:
1222:hits a building with wind and flood hazards
1189:
1105:
1040:Lungowe and others and Vedanta Resources plc
86:Intentional infliction of emotional distress
1598:
1584:
869:would not have occurred.) The action is a
833:
819:
226:Negligent infliction of emotional distress
1485:PPG Indus., Inc. v. Transamerica Ins. Co.
1177:Therefore, in the final version of the
1070:
1024:baseball at someone could cause them a
986:. Injury or illness is occasioned by a
976:in the direction of their guide, and a
2582:
1556:The Metaphysics of Causal Intervention
1502:Kinsman Transit Co. v. City of Buffalo
1579:
1410:Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Road Co.
1284:March v Stramare (E & MH) Pty Ltd
1083:Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.
905:A few circumstances exist where the
23:. For causation in English law, see
1539:Leonard v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
1500:, 338 F.2d 708 (2nd Cir. 1964) and
1045:
920:negligently leaves the cover off a
13:
1637:Accidental death and dismemberment
1548:
960:In the United States, the rule of
883:
14:
2606:
1018:
1763:Directors and officers liability
1570:The Rationale of Proximate Cause
1010:
800:
21:Proximate and ultimate causation
1532:
1514:American Law Institute (2010).
1507:
1504:, 388 F.2d 821 (2nd Cir. 1968).
1490:
1478:
1469:
1459:
1442:
1433:
1424:
1415:
1403:
1376:Caparo Industries Plc v Dickman
1145:For example, in the two famous
900:
552:Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
2595:Legal doctrines and principles
1487:, 20 Cal. 4th 310, 316 (1999).
1394:
1387:United Kingdom Supreme Court,
1381:
1368:
1355:
1340:
1328:
1316:
1302:
1136:
1:
1605:
1456:, 113 A. 2d 147 (Conn. 1955).
1363:Restatement (Second) of Torts
1269:
1042:(Supreme Court ruling 2019).
662:(term used for torts in some
2530:Savings and loan association
1058:Risk enhancement/causal link
873:condition, but may not be a
7:
1963:Insurance-linked securities
1237:
558:Joint and several liability
10:
2611:
1652:Total permanent disability
1412:, 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928).
1214:does not normally include
944:Sufficient combined causes
332:Comparative responsibility
18:
2555:
2407:
2392:Health insurance coverage
2332:
2116:
1945:
1887:
1816:
1735:
1687:
1657:Business overhead expense
1622:
1613:
1498:In re Kinsman Transit Co.
1337:, 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948).
1196:efficient proximate cause
1190:Efficient proximate cause
1181:, published in 2010, the
647:Non-economic damages caps
1793:Protection and indemnity
680:Private attorney general
634:Other topics in tort law
262:Principles of negligence
191:Alienation of affections
25:Causation in English law
2250:Explanation of benefits
1722:Variable universal life
545:Volenti non fit injuria
370:Ultrahazardous activity
337:Contributory negligence
2387:Health insurance costs
1788:Professional liability
1454:Accord Lubitz v. Wells
1349:Sindell v. Abbott Labs
1183:American Law Institute
563:Market share liability
496:Shopkeeper's privilege
474:Statute of limitations
317:Restitutio ad integrum
166:Intrusion on seclusion
61:Trespass to the person
2243:Out-of-pocket expense
2104:Workers' compensation
1758:Collateral protection
1748:Business interruption
1289:[1991] HCA 12
984:Market share evidence
675:Conflict of tort laws
441:Tortious interference
196:Criminal conversation
183:Malicious prosecution
2466:Corpus Juris Civilis
1157:jurisdiction over a
1086:case under New York
1071:Harm within the risk
940:cause of the injury.
928:negligently clips a
173:Breach of confidence
2525:Rochdale Principles
2520:Mutual savings bank
2515:Mutual organization
2500:Cooperative banking
2417:Mesopotamian banker
1697:Longevity insurance
918:construction worker
668:mixed legal systems
538:Respondeat superior
532:Vicarious liability
491:Defence of property
428:Insurance bad faith
342:Attractive nuisance
161:Invasion of privacy
2277:Insurable interest
1778:Payment protection
1679:Payment protection
1554:Michael S. Moore,
1212:property insurance
1026:blunt-force injury
568:Transferred intent
459:Assumption of risk
423:Restraint of trade
399:Rylands v Fletcher
231:Employment-related
80:False imprisonment
2577:
2576:
2422:Code of Hammurabi
2397:Vehicle insurance
2292:Replacement value
2184:Actual cash value
2148:Adverse selection
2138:Actuarial science
2112:
2111:
2044:Kidnap and ransom
2017:Extended warranty
1664:Income protection
1248:but-for causation
1224:at the same time.
956:Corey v. Havener.
924:, and a careless
914:Concurrent causes
843:
842:
716:England and Wales
671:
522:Last clear chance
517:Intentional torts
501:Neutral reportage
484:Defense of others
432:
365:Product liability
311:Res ipsa loquitur
298:Reasonable person
206:Breach of promise
55:
2602:
2535:Social insurance
2490:Friendly society
2382:Health insurance
2210:Short rate table
1958:Catastrophe bond
1859:Lenders mortgage
1620:
1619:
1600:
1593:
1586:
1577:
1576:
1561:
1542:
1536:
1530:
1529:
1511:
1505:
1494:
1488:
1482:
1476:
1473:
1467:
1463:
1457:
1446:
1440:
1437:
1431:
1428:
1422:
1419:
1413:
1407:
1401:
1398:
1392:
1385:
1379:
1374:House of Lords,
1372:
1366:
1359:
1353:
1344:
1338:
1332:
1326:
1325:, 182 Mass. 250.
1323:Corey v. Havener
1320:
1314:
1313:
1306:
1300:
1280:
1200:insurance policy
1078:Benjamin Cardozo
1065:foreseeable risk
1046:Direct causation
1036:Caparo v Dickman
835:
828:
821:
805:
804:
661:
430:
293:Standard of care
178:Abuse of process
88:
49:
30:
29:
2610:
2609:
2605:
2604:
2603:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2573:
2551:
2547:Insurance cycle
2510:Fraternal order
2403:
2334:
2328:
2287:Proximate cause
2282:Insurance fraud
2262:General average
2221:Claims adjuster
2163:Risk management
2158:Risk assessment
2122:
2119:
2108:
2074:Prize indemnity
1941:
1889:
1883:
1812:
1773:Over-redemption
1731:
1683:
1674:National health
1615:
1609:
1604:
1559:
1551:
1549:Further reading
1546:
1545:
1537:
1533:
1526:
1512:
1508:
1495:
1491:
1483:
1479:
1474:
1470:
1464:
1460:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1434:
1429:
1425:
1420:
1416:
1408:
1404:
1399:
1395:
1386:
1382:
1373:
1369:
1360:
1356:
1345:
1341:
1335:Summers v. Tice
1333:
1329:
1321:
1317:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1240:
1216:flood insurance
1192:
1149:cases from the
1147:Kinsman Transit
1139:
1108:
1106:The "Risk Rule"
1073:
1060:
1048:
1021:
1013:
964:Summers v. Tice
903:
855:proximate cause
839:
799:
693:By jurisdiction
393:Public nuisance
322:Rescue doctrine
305:Proximate cause
217:Negligent torts
129:Dignitary torts
84:
28:
17:
12:
11:
5:
2608:
2598:
2597:
2592:
2575:
2574:
2572:
2571:
2568:List of topics
2564:
2556:
2553:
2552:
2550:
2549:
2544:
2543:
2542:
2537:
2532:
2527:
2522:
2517:
2512:
2507:
2502:
2497:
2483:
2478:
2477:
2476:
2462:
2461:
2460:
2455:
2453:Burial society
2443:
2442:
2441:
2435:§235–238; §240
2427:§100–105; §126
2419:
2413:
2411:
2405:
2404:
2402:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2394:
2389:
2384:
2379:
2377:Climate change
2369:
2367:United Kingdom
2364:
2359:
2354:
2349:
2344:
2338:
2336:
2330:
2329:
2327:
2326:
2325:
2324:
2314:
2312:Underinsurance
2309:
2304:
2302:Self-insurance
2299:
2294:
2289:
2284:
2279:
2274:
2269:
2264:
2259:
2252:
2247:
2246:
2245:
2240:
2235:
2225:
2224:
2223:
2213:
2212:
2211:
2208:
2196:
2191:
2186:
2181:
2180:
2179:
2174:
2165:
2160:
2155:
2150:
2145:
2135:
2129:
2127:
2114:
2113:
2110:
2109:
2107:
2106:
2101:
2096:
2091:
2086:
2081:
2076:
2071:
2069:Political risk
2066:
2061:
2056:
2051:
2049:Legal expenses
2046:
2041:
2036:
2035:
2034:
2024:
2019:
2014:
2009:
2004:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1992:
1982:
1977:
1972:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1960:
1949:
1947:
1943:
1942:
1940:
1939:
1934:
1929:
1924:
1919:
1914:
1909:
1904:
1899:
1893:
1891:
1885:
1884:
1882:
1881:
1876:
1871:
1866:
1861:
1856:
1851:
1846:
1841:
1836:
1831:
1829:Builder's risk
1826:
1820:
1818:
1814:
1813:
1811:
1810:
1805:
1800:
1795:
1790:
1785:
1780:
1775:
1770:
1765:
1760:
1755:
1753:Business owner
1750:
1745:
1739:
1737:
1733:
1732:
1730:
1729:
1724:
1719:
1717:Universal life
1714:
1709:
1704:
1699:
1693:
1691:
1685:
1684:
1682:
1681:
1676:
1671:
1669:Long-term care
1666:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1654:
1644:
1639:
1634:
1628:
1626:
1617:
1611:
1610:
1603:
1602:
1595:
1588:
1580:
1574:
1573:
1563:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1543:
1531:
1524:
1506:
1489:
1477:
1468:
1458:
1441:
1432:
1423:
1414:
1402:
1393:
1380:
1367:
1354:
1339:
1327:
1315:
1301:
1274:
1273:
1271:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1261:
1256:
1251:
1239:
1236:
1191:
1188:
1138:
1135:
1130:
1129:
1121:
1107:
1104:
1072:
1069:
1059:
1056:
1047:
1044:
1020:
1019:Foreseeability
1017:
1012:
1009:
997:
996:
981:
958:
950:unattended. A
941:
907:"but for" test
902:
899:
841:
840:
838:
837:
830:
823:
815:
812:
811:
810:
809:
807:Law portal
794:
793:
792:
791:
778:
773:
768:
763:
755:
754:
746:
745:
744:
743:
738:
733:
728:
723:
721:European Union
718:
713:
708:
703:
695:
694:
690:
689:
688:
687:
682:
677:
672:
656:
651:
650:
649:
636:
635:
631:
630:
629:
628:
623:
618:
613:
608:
603:
602:
601:
596:
591:
578:
577:
573:
572:
571:
570:
565:
560:
555:
548:
541:
534:
529:
527:Eggshell skull
524:
519:
511:
510:
506:
505:
504:
503:
498:
493:
488:
487:
486:
476:
471:
466:
461:
453:
452:
446:
445:
444:
443:
438:
433:
431:(American law)
425:
420:
412:
411:
409:Economic torts
405:
404:
403:
402:
395:
387:
386:
380:
379:
378:
377:
372:
367:
359:
358:
347:
346:
345:
344:
339:
334:
329:
327:Duty to rescue
324:
319:
314:
307:
302:
301:
300:
290:
289:
288:
283:
278:
265:
264:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
248:
238:
233:
228:
220:
219:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
208:
203:
198:
193:
185:
180:
175:
170:
169:
168:
158:
153:
152:
151:
148:
140:
132:
131:
125:
124:
123:
122:
117:
116:
115:
110:
97:
96:
95:Property torts
92:
91:
90:
89:
82:
77:
72:
64:
63:
57:
56:
46:
45:
39:
38:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2607:
2596:
2593:
2591:
2588:
2587:
2585:
2570:
2569:
2565:
2563:
2562:
2558:
2557:
2554:
2548:
2545:
2541:
2538:
2536:
2533:
2531:
2528:
2526:
2523:
2521:
2518:
2516:
2513:
2511:
2508:
2506:
2503:
2501:
2498:
2496:
2493:
2492:
2491:
2487:
2484:
2482:
2479:
2475:
2474:
2470:
2469:
2468:
2467:
2463:
2459:
2456:
2454:
2451:
2450:
2449:
2448:
2444:
2440:
2436:
2432:
2428:
2425:
2424:
2423:
2420:
2418:
2415:
2414:
2412:
2410:
2406:
2398:
2395:
2393:
2390:
2388:
2385:
2383:
2380:
2378:
2375:
2374:
2373:
2372:United States
2370:
2368:
2365:
2363:
2360:
2358:
2355:
2353:
2350:
2348:
2345:
2343:
2340:
2339:
2337:
2331:
2323:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2313:
2310:
2308:
2305:
2303:
2300:
2298:
2295:
2293:
2290:
2288:
2285:
2283:
2280:
2278:
2275:
2273:
2270:
2268:
2265:
2263:
2260:
2258:
2257:
2256:Force majeure
2253:
2251:
2248:
2244:
2241:
2239:
2236:
2234:
2231:
2230:
2229:
2226:
2222:
2219:
2218:
2217:
2214:
2209:
2207:
2206:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2197:
2195:
2192:
2190:
2187:
2185:
2182:
2178:
2177:Value of life
2175:
2173:
2169:
2166:
2164:
2161:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2151:
2149:
2146:
2144:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2130:
2128:
2126:
2121:
2115:
2105:
2102:
2100:
2097:
2095:
2092:
2090:
2087:
2085:
2082:
2080:
2077:
2075:
2072:
2070:
2067:
2065:
2062:
2060:
2057:
2055:
2052:
2050:
2047:
2045:
2042:
2040:
2039:Interest rate
2037:
2033:
2030:
2029:
2028:
2025:
2023:
2020:
2018:
2015:
2013:
2010:
2008:
2005:
2003:
2000:
1996:
1993:
1991:
1988:
1987:
1986:
1983:
1981:
1978:
1976:
1973:
1971:
1968:
1964:
1961:
1959:
1956:
1955:
1954:
1951:
1950:
1948:
1944:
1938:
1935:
1933:
1930:
1928:
1925:
1923:
1920:
1918:
1915:
1913:
1910:
1908:
1907:Inland marine
1905:
1903:
1902:GAP insurance
1900:
1898:
1895:
1894:
1892:
1890:Communication
1886:
1880:
1877:
1875:
1872:
1870:
1867:
1865:
1862:
1860:
1857:
1855:
1852:
1850:
1847:
1845:
1842:
1840:
1837:
1835:
1832:
1830:
1827:
1825:
1822:
1821:
1819:
1815:
1809:
1806:
1804:
1801:
1799:
1796:
1794:
1791:
1789:
1786:
1784:
1781:
1779:
1776:
1774:
1771:
1769:
1766:
1764:
1761:
1759:
1756:
1754:
1751:
1749:
1746:
1744:
1741:
1740:
1738:
1734:
1728:
1725:
1723:
1720:
1718:
1715:
1713:
1712:Unitised fund
1710:
1708:
1705:
1703:
1702:Mortgage life
1700:
1698:
1695:
1694:
1692:
1690:
1686:
1680:
1677:
1675:
1672:
1670:
1667:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1653:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1645:
1643:
1640:
1638:
1635:
1633:
1630:
1629:
1627:
1625:
1621:
1618:
1612:
1608:
1601:
1596:
1594:
1589:
1587:
1582:
1581:
1578:
1571:
1567:
1566:Leon A. Green
1564:
1560:calif l. rev.
1557:
1553:
1552:
1540:
1535:
1527:
1525:9780314801340
1521:
1517:
1510:
1503:
1499:
1493:
1486:
1481:
1472:
1466:among others.
1462:
1455:
1451:
1445:
1436:
1427:
1418:
1411:
1406:
1397:
1390:
1384:
1377:
1371:
1364:
1358:
1351:
1350:
1343:
1336:
1331:
1324:
1319:
1311:
1305:
1298:
1294:
1291:, (1991) 171
1290:
1286:
1285:
1279:
1275:
1265:
1262:
1260:
1257:
1255:
1252:
1249:
1245:
1242:
1241:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1213:
1208:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1187:
1184:
1180:
1175:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1160:
1156:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1134:
1126:
1122:
1118:
1117:
1116:
1113:
1103:
1100:
1095:
1091:
1089:
1085:
1084:
1079:
1068:
1066:
1055:
1052:
1043:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1029:
1027:
1016:
1011:Other factors
1008:
1006:
1005:proxima causa
1002:
994:
989:
985:
982:
979:
975:
971:
967:
966:
965:
959:
957:
953:
949:
945:
942:
939:
935:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
912:
911:
910:
908:
898:
896:
895:
894:
887:
885:
884:Other factors
880:
876:
872:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
836:
831:
829:
824:
822:
817:
816:
814:
813:
808:
803:
798:
797:
796:
795:
790:
786:
782:
779:
777:
774:
772:
769:
767:
764:
762:
759:
758:
757:
756:
752:
748:
747:
742:
741:United States
739:
737:
734:
732:
729:
727:
724:
722:
719:
717:
714:
712:
709:
707:
704:
702:
699:
698:
697:
696:
692:
691:
686:
683:
681:
678:
676:
673:
669:
665:
660:
657:
655:
652:
648:
645:
644:
643:
640:
639:
638:
637:
633:
632:
627:
624:
622:
619:
617:
614:
612:
609:
607:
604:
600:
597:
595:
592:
590:
587:
586:
585:
582:
581:
580:
579:
575:
574:
569:
566:
564:
561:
559:
556:
554:
553:
549:
547:
546:
542:
540:
539:
535:
533:
530:
528:
525:
523:
520:
518:
515:
514:
513:
512:
508:
507:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
485:
482:
481:
480:
477:
475:
472:
470:
467:
465:
462:
460:
457:
456:
455:
454:
451:
448:
447:
442:
439:
437:
434:
429:
426:
424:
421:
419:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
407:
406:
401:
400:
396:
394:
391:
390:
389:
388:
385:
382:
381:
376:
373:
371:
368:
366:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
349:
348:
343:
340:
338:
335:
333:
330:
328:
325:
323:
320:
318:
315:
313:
312:
308:
306:
303:
299:
296:
295:
294:
291:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
273:
272:
269:
268:
267:
266:
263:
260:
259:
252:
249:
247:
244:
243:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
218:
215:
214:
207:
204:
202:
199:
197:
194:
192:
189:
188:
187:Sexual torts
186:
184:
181:
179:
176:
174:
171:
167:
164:
163:
162:
159:
157:
154:
149:
146:
145:
144:
141:
139:
138:Appropriation
136:
135:
134:
133:
130:
127:
126:
121:
118:
114:
111:
109:
106:
105:
104:
101:
100:
99:
98:
94:
93:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
73:
71:
68:
67:
66:
65:
62:
59:
58:
53:
48:
47:
44:
41:
40:
36:
32:
31:
26:
22:
2566:
2559:
2505:Credit union
2471:
2464:
2445:
2317:Underwriting
2286:
2272:Insurability
2254:
2233:Co-insurance
2203:
2199:Cancellation
1990:Catastrophic
1975:Climate risk
1803:Trade credit
1569:
1555:
1538:
1534:
1515:
1509:
1501:
1497:
1492:
1484:
1480:
1471:
1461:
1453:
1444:
1435:
1426:
1417:
1409:
1405:
1396:
1383:
1370:
1357:
1347:
1342:
1334:
1330:
1322:
1318:
1304:
1299:(Australia).
1282:
1278:
1244:Sine qua non
1233:
1228:
1223:
1209:
1203:
1195:
1193:
1178:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1153:(exercising
1146:
1144:
1140:
1131:
1112:Law of Torts
1109:
1096:
1092:
1081:
1074:
1064:
1061:
1053:
1049:
1033:
1030:
1022:
1014:
1004:
998:
983:
969:
962:
961:
955:
943:
937:
934:but for test
933:
913:
906:
904:
901:But-for test
893:sine qua non
891:
890:
888:
879:but-for test
878:
854:
844:
766:Criminal law
685:Class action
550:
543:
536:
479:Self-defense
397:
375:Deep pockets
309:
304:
271:Duty of care
33:Part of the
2540:Trade union
2495:Cooperative
2168:Uncertainty
2027:Index-based
1995:Multi-peril
1953:Reinsurance
1912:Public auto
1817:Residential
1562:827 (2000).
1254:Four causes
1151:2nd Circuit
1137:Controversy
1001:culpability
952:forest fire
897:causation.
642:Tort reform
276:Trespassers
241:Malpractice
236:Entrustment
156:False light
2584:Categories
2335:by country
2333:Insurance
2307:Total loss
2228:Deductible
2189:Cash value
2133:Act of God
2118:Insurance
2032:Parametric
2012:Expatriate
1888:Transport/
1854:Landlords'
1839:Earthquake
1727:Whole life
1647:Disability
1297:High Court
1270:References
1172:Kinsman II
1125:rat poison
930:pedestrian
875:sufficient
751:common law
654:Quasi-tort
606:Injunction
599:Incidental
418:Conspiracy
143:Defamation
120:Conversion
35:common law
2481:Syndicate
2447:Collegium
2342:Australia
2297:Risk pool
2267:Indemnity
2238:Copayment
2172:Knightian
2084:Terrorism
2054:Liability
1922:Satellite
1783:Pollution
1707:Term life
1616:insurance
1614:Types of
1607:Insurance
1259:Causation
1220:hurricane
1168:Kinsman I
1155:admiralty
948:campfires
871:necessary
867:collision
863:red light
859:causation
851:insurance
761:Contracts
701:Australia
509:Liability
469:Necessity
357:liability
281:Licensees
201:Seduction
2590:Tort law
2561:Category
2439:§275–277
2357:Pakistan
2205:Pro rata
2094:War risk
2059:No-fault
1970:Casualty
1927:Shipping
1897:Aviation
1874:Renters'
1869:Property
1864:Mortgage
1834:Contents
1808:Umbrella
1768:Fidelity
1736:Business
1632:Accident
1238:See also
1159:New York
1099:New York
988:fungible
974:shotguns
776:Property
771:Evidence
621:Replevin
589:Punitive
576:Remedies
450:Defences
384:Nuisance
355:absolute
286:Invitees
113:chattels
103:Trespass
43:Tort law
2486:Benefit
2473:Digesta
2409:History
2143:Actuary
2099:Weather
2089:Tuition
2079:Takaful
2007:Deposit
1937:Vehicle
1572:(1927).
1264:Pretext
993:damages
938:but for
922:manhole
789:estates
616:Detinue
611:Tracing
594:Special
584:Damages
464:Consent
251:medical
147:Slander
75:Battery
70:Assault
52:Outline
2362:Serbia
2322:Profit
2194:Broker
2120:policy
1932:Travel
1917:Marine
1824:Boiler
1798:Surety
1642:Dental
1624:Health
1522:
1229:entire
978:pellet
926:driver
865:, the
787:, and
785:trusts
749:Other
736:Taiwan
706:Canada
659:Delict
626:Trover
351:Strict
37:series
2458:Guild
2352:India
2347:China
2216:Claim
2022:Group
2002:Cyber
1980:Crime
1946:Other
1879:Title
1844:Flood
1558:, 88
1295:506,
1287:
1090:law.
1088:state
781:Wills
753:areas
731:Japan
726:India
711:China
664:civil
436:Fraud
246:legal
150:Libel
2431:§234
2153:Risk
2123:and
1985:Crop
1849:Home
1743:Bond
1689:Life
1520:ISBN
1496:See
1361:See
1346:See
1204:last
853:, a
849:and
666:and
353:and
108:land
2125:law
2064:Pet
1452:.
1293:CLR
1174:).
1164:sue
1080:in
970:not
847:law
845:In
2586::
2437:;
2433:;
2429:;
1568:,
1067:.
1007:.
783:,
2488:/
2170:/
1599:e
1592:t
1585:v
1528:.
1365:.
1352:.
1312:.
1250:)
1246:(
1166:(
834:e
827:t
820:v
670:)
54:)
50:(
27:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.