ExamFinch.com My Study

Study guide

14.3 Negligence: Causation, Damages, NIED & Comparative Fault

Practice this exam

Uniform Bar Examination UBE

Track your progress as you read

Finished sections get a check mark.

1 Chapter 1: UBE Architecture & Bar Study Strategy

1.1 UBE Architecture, Scoring Mechanics & Jurisdiction Cutoffs 1.2 NextGen Bar Exam Transition & Comparative Architecture 1.3 400–600 Hour Bar Prep Architecture & Active Recall Strategies

2 Chapter 2: Civil Procedure: Jurisdiction & Pretrial

2.1 Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Supplemental Jurisdiction & Removal 2.2 Personal Jurisdiction, Service of Process & Venue 2.3 The Erie Doctrine, Pleadings & Pre-Answer Motions

3 Chapter 3: Civil Procedure: Discovery, Trial & Preclusion

3.1 Joinder of Claims, Parties, Interpleader & Class Actions 3.2 Scope of Discovery, Work-Product Doctrine & Summary Judgment 3.3 Trial Motions, Claim Preclusion, Issue Preclusion & Appeals

4 Chapter 4: Constitutional Law: Federal Powers & Separation of Powers

4.1 Article III Judicial Power, Justiciability & Federal Jurisdiction 4.2 Article I Legislative Powers, Article II Executive Authority & Separation of Powers 4.3 Federalism, Preemption, Dormant Commerce Clause & Intergovernmental Immunities

5 Chapter 5: Constitutional Law: Individual Rights & Liberties

5.1 State Action Doctrine, Procedural Due Process & Substantive Due Process 5.2 Equal Protection Tiers of Scrutiny & Suspect Classifications 5.3 First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Press & Religion

6 Chapter 6: Contracts & Sales: Formation, Defenses & Terms

6.1 Contract Formation, Offer, Acceptance & UCC Battle of the Forms 6.2 Consideration, Contract Modifications & Formation Defenses 6.3 Parol Evidence Rule, Interpretation, Warranties & Risk of Loss

7 Chapter 7: Contracts & Sales: Performance, Breach & Remedies

7.1 Conditions, Performance Standards, Material Breach & UCC Perfect Tender 7.2 Anticipatory Repudiation, Insecurity & Discharge of Duties 7.3 Contract Remedies, Damages Measurement & Third-Party Rights

8 Chapter 8: Criminal Law: Principles, Homicide & Crimes

8.1 Principles of Criminal Liability, Mens Rea & Inchoate Crimes 8.2 Common Law & Statutory Homicide and Crimes Against the Person 8.3 Property Crimes, Theft Offenses & Crimes Against Habitation

9 Chapter 9: Criminal Law Defenses & Criminal Procedure

9.1 Substantive Criminal Defenses, Justification & Excuse 9.2 Fourth Amendment: Search, Seizure & Exclusionary Rule 9.3 Fifth Amendment Miranda, Sixth Amendment Counsel & Double Jeopardy

10 Chapter 10: Evidence: Relevance, Character & Witnesses

10.1 Logical Relevance, FRE 403 Exclusion & Policy Exclusions 10.2 Character Evidence, Specific Bad Acts (MIMIC) & Habit 10.3 Witness Competence, Impeachment Methods & Expert Opinion

11 Chapter 11: Evidence: Hearsay, Exceptions & Writings

11.1 The Hearsay Rule, Non-Hearsay Purposes & FRE 801(d) Exclusions 11.2 Hearsay Exceptions (FRE 803 & 804) & Sixth Amendment Confrontation 11.3 Evidentiary Privileges, Authentication & Best Evidence Rule

12 Chapter 12: Real Property: Estates, Concurrent Ownership & Leases

12.1 Present Freehold Estates, Future Interests & Rule Against Perpetuities 12.2 Concurrent Ownership: Tenancies & Co-Tenant Rights and Duties 12.3 Landlord-Tenant Relationships, Leaseholds & Transfer Rights

13 Chapter 13: Real Property: Conveyances, Titles & Land Rights

13.1 Real Estate Contracts, Conveyancing & Mortgage Financing 13.2 Deeds, Covenants of Title, Recording Acts & Title Assurance 13.3 Easements, Real Covenants, Equitable Servitudes & Land Use

14 Chapter 14: Torts: Intentional Torts, Negligence & Defenses

14.1 Intentional Torts to Persons and Property & Affirmative Defenses 14.2 The Negligence Framework: Duty of Care, Standards & Breach 14.3 Negligence: Causation, Damages, NIED & Comparative Fault

15 Chapter 15: Torts: Strict Liability, Products Liability & Defamation

15.1 Strict Liability: Animals, Abnormally Dangerous Activities & Defenses 15.2 Products Liability, Vicarious Liability & Joint Tortfeasors 15.3 Defamation, Privacy Torts & Business Torts

16 Chapter 16: MEE Subjects: Business Associations & Conflict of Laws

16.1 Agency Relationships, General Partnerships, LPs & LLCs 16.2 Corporate Formation, Governance, Fiduciary Duties & Shareholder Rights 16.3 Conflict of Laws: Choice of Law Approaches & Recognition of Judgments

17 Chapter 17: MEE Trusts, Estates, Family Law, Secured Transactions & MPT Strategy

17.1 Family Law: Premarital Agreements, Divorce, Property Division & Child Custody 17.2 Decedents' Estates, Wills Formalities & Trusts Administration 17.3 Secured Transactions: UCC Article 9 Attachment, Perfection & Priorities 17.4 Multistate Performance Test (MPT) Closed-Universe Analysis & MEE Essay IRAC Mastery

14.3 Negligence: Causation, Damages, NIED & Comparative Fault

Key Takeaways Explain This Topic AI

Actual causation (cause-in-fact) requires the 'But-For' test for single causes, the 'Substantial Factor' test for concurrent merged causes (Kingston), or 'Alternative Liability' to shift the burden of proof when multiple defendants acted negligently but only one caused harm (Summers v. Tice).

Proximate causation requires that the plaintiff's injury was a foreseeable result within the scope of risk created by defendant's conduct; dependent intervening forces (ordinary medical malpractice, rescuers under 'danger invites rescue') do not break causation, whereas extraordinary unforeseeable forces (unforeseeable crimes, acts of God) act as superseding causes.

Negligence requires actual physical injury or property damage; nominal damages are barred, and the Economic Loss Rule prohibits recovery for purely financial losses without physical impact; under the Eggshell Skull Plaintiff rule, defendant is fully liable for all physical consequences regardless of latent frailty.

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED) is restricted to: (1) Zone of Danger (near-miss physical threat + physical symptoms); (2) Bystander Claims (close relative present at scene contemporaneously observing catastrophic injury under Dillon/Thing); or (3) Special Pre-existing Relationships (e.g., mishandling corpse).

Defenses to negligence include Contributory Negligence (complete common law bar, mitigated by Last Clear Chance), Pure Comparative Negligence (plaintiff recovers damages reduced by fault percentage, even if 90% at fault), and Modified Comparative Negligence (plaintiff barred if fault exceeds 50% under the 51% rule or equals 50% under the 50% rule).

Last updated: August 2026

14.3 Negligence: Causation, Damages, NIED & Comparative Fault

Once duty and breach are established, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's breach caused the plaintiff's injuries and that the plaintiff suffered legally cognizable damages . Furthermore, the defendant may raise affirmative defenses based on the plaintiff's own comparative fault or assumption of risk.

1. Actual Causation (Cause-in-Fact)

Actual cause establishes the factual connection between the defendant's breach and the plaintiff's harm. Courts apply three distinct tests depending on the factual scenario: +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  • | ACTUAL CAUSATION DECISION TREE |
  • | |
  • | SINGLE DEFENDANT / CAUSE? |
  • | --> Apply BUT-FOR TEST: "Injury would not have occurred BUT FOR breach." |
  • | |
  • | MULTIPLE INDEPENDENT MERGED CAUSES (Each sufficient alone)? |
  • | --> Apply SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST (Kingston merged fires doctrine). |
  • | |
  • | MULTIPLE NEGLIGENT DEFENDANTS, ONLY ONE CAUSED HARM (Uncertain which)? |
  • | --> Apply ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY (Summers v. Tice): Shifts burden of |
  • | proof to defendants; joint and several liability if neither exonerates|
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • 1. The "But-For" Test

Standard: The injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's negligent conduct.

Application: Used in the vast majority of single-cause tort actions.

2. The Substantial Factor Test (Concurrent Merged Causes)

Standard: Where two or more independent negligent acts combine concurrently to produce a single indivisible injury, and each act alone would have been sufficient to cause the entire harm, each defendant's act is deemed an actual cause if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury ( Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. ).

3. Alternative Liability Theory ( Summers v. Tice )

Standard: Where two or more defendants act negligently toward the plaintiff at the same time, but only one defendant caused the plaintiff's harm, and it is impossible for the plaintiff to determine which one, the court shifts the burden of proof to each defendant to prove they did not cause the injury.

Result: If a defendant cannot exonerate themselves, all defendants are held jointly and severally liable .

2. Proximate Cause (Scope of Liability) & Intervening Forces

Proximate cause is a policy determination limiting a defendant's liability to harms that bear a foreseeable relationship to the defendant's negligent conduct ( The Wagon Mound No. 1 ). +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  • | PROXIMATE CAUSE & INTERVENING FORCES MATRIX |
  • | |
  • | DEFENDANT'S BREACH -----> INTERVENING FORCE -----> PLAINTIFF'S INJURY |
  • | |
  • | DEPENDENT / FORESEEABLE INTERVENING FORCES (Defendant REMAINS LIABLE): |
  • | [+] Subsequent Ordinary Medical Negligence (malpractice is foreseeable) |
  • | [+] Negligence of Rescuers ("Danger invites rescue" - Wagner) |
  • | [+] Reactions to Peril / Escape Efforts |
  • | [+] Subsequent Diseases or Secondary Accidents Weakened by First Injury |
  • | |
  • | SUPERSEDING / UNFORESEEABLE FORCES (Defendant DISCHARGED from Liability): |
  • | [-] Intentional Crimes / Torts of 3rd Parties (unless foreseeable) |
  • | [-] Extraordinary, Gross Medical Malpractice |
  • | [-] Unforeseeable Acts of God / Extraordinary Natural Disasters |
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • Intervening vs. Superseding Forces

Intervening Force: An active force that comes into operation after the defendant's negligent act and contributes to producing the plaintiff's injury.

Dependent (Foreseeable) Intervening Forces: Forces that are normal, natural responses to the situation created by defendant's negligence. Defendant remains liable .

Medical Malpractice: Ordinary medical negligence that aggravates an initial injury is deemed a foreseeable dependent risk.

Rescuer Rule ( Wagner v. International Ry. ): "Danger invites rescue." An original tortfeasor is liable for injuries suffered by a rescuer who acts reasonably to assist a victim.

Superseding Forces: An unforeseeable, extraordinary intervening force that breaks the causal chain and completely relieves the original defendant of liability for injuries occurring thereafter.

Criminal Acts: A third party's criminal act or intentional tort is typically a superseding cause, UNLESS the defendant's initial negligence created or increased the foreseeable risk of that specific criminal conduct (e.g., a landlord who leaves a security gate broken in a high-crime area is liable when a tenant is assaulted by an intruder).

3. Legally Cognizable Damages & Rules of Calculation +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  • | NEGLIGENCE DAMAGES RULES |
  • | |
  • | 1. ACTUAL HARM REQUIRED: Physical injury or property damage mandatory. |
  • | (Nominal damages NOT permitted; Economic Loss Rule bars pure money) |
  • | |
  • | 2. EGGSHELL SKULL RULE: Defendant takes plaintiff as found. Full extent |
  • | of physical injury is compensable, even if unforeseeably severe. |
  • | |
  • | 3. COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE: Payments from insurance or third parties do |
  • | NOT reduce defendant's damages liability. |
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • Core Damages Principles

Actual Harm Mandatory: A plaintiff cannot maintain a negligence action without actual, demonstrable physical injury or property damage. Nominal damages are not available in negligence.

The Economic Loss Rule: A plaintiff cannot recover in negligence for purely economic losses (e.g., lost profits) unaccompanied by physical damage to the plaintiff's person or property.

The Eggshell Skull Plaintiff Rule ( Vosburg v. Putney / Benn v. Thomas ): Once the plaintiff establishes the prima facie elements of negligence, the defendant is liable for the full extent of all physical injuries suffered by the plaintiff , even if the severity of the injury was completely unforeseeable due to the plaintiff's pre-existing frailty or latent medical condition.

The Collateral Source Rule: Compensation received by the plaintiff from independent collateral sources (e.g., private health insurance, disability benefits, or sick leave) is not deducted from the damages the defendant is required to pay.

4. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (NIED)

Under common law, courts strictly limit claims for purely emotional harm unaccompanied by direct physical impact to three recognized categories:

NIED Category Primary Legal Standard Mandatory Prerequisites Key Precedent

Near-Miss / Zone of Danger Plaintiff within the physical area of danger created by defendant's negligence 1. Plaintiff in immediate zone of physical danger;; 2. Severe emotional distress;; 3. Physical manifestations (e.g., heart attack, shock). Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall

Bystander Recovery Plaintiff witnesses catastrophic injury to a close relative 1. Closely related to victim (parent, child, spouse);; 2. Present at the accident scene;; 3. Contemporaneous sensory perception of the impact. Dillon v. Legg / Thing v. La Chusa

Special Relationships / Pre-existing Duty High foreseeable risk of severe emotional trauma from breach of specific duty Pre-existing fiduciary or contractual relationship where distress is highly foreseeable (e.g., mishandling a corpse, false death telegram). Common Law Direct Victim Doctrine

5. Defenses to Negligence & Comparative Fault Systems +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

  • | COMPARATIVE FAULT SYSTEMS MATRIX |
  • | |
  • | SYSTEM RULE ON RECOVERY SAMPLE CALCULATION |
  • | --------------------- --------------------------- -------------------- |
  • | Contributory ANY plaintiff negligence P 1% at fault = |
  • | Negligence (Common L.) COMPLETELY BARS recovery. $0 Recovery. |
  • | |
  • | Pure Comparative P recovers damages reduced P 90% at fault, $100k |
  • | Negligence by % fault, NO BAR. damages = $10,000 Rec.|
  • | |
  • | Modified Comparative P recovers ONLY if fault is P 50% fault = $0 Rec. |
  • | (50% Bar Rule) STRICTLY LESS than D (<= 49%) |
  • | |
  • | Modified Comparative P recovers IF fault is NOT P 50% fault = 50% Rec.|
  • | (51% Bar Rule) GREATER than D (<= 50%) P 51% fault = $0 Rec. |
  • +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
  • 1. Traditional Contributory Negligence

Rule: At common law, any contributory negligence by the plaintiff—no matter how minor—constitutes an absolute and complete bar to recovery.

The Last Clear Chance Doctrine (Contributory Negligence Exception): If the defendant had the "last clear chance" to avoid the accident through the exercise of reasonable care and failed to do so, the plaintiff's contributory negligence is excused, and the plaintiff may recover full damages.

2. Comparative Negligence (Modern Law)

Pure Comparative Negligence (Default MBE Rule unless specified): The plaintiff's recoverable damages are reduced strictly by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. A plaintiff who is 90% at fault can still recover 10% of their damages.

Modified Comparative Negligence (Partial Comparative Fault):

50% Bar Rule ("Not as Great as" / Equal Fault Bars): Plaintiff is barred from recovery if the plaintiff's fault is equal to or greater than 50% (plaintiff recovers only if fault is 49% or less).

51% Bar Rule ("Not Greater Than" / Greater Fault Bars - Majority Modified Rule): Plaintiff is barred from recovery if the plaintiff's fault is strictly greater than 50% (plaintiff recovers reduced damages if fault is 50% or less).

3. Assumption of the Risk

Express Assumption of Risk: An express contractual exculpatory agreement bars recovery unless it violates public policy (e.g., gross negligence or essential public services).

Implied Assumption of Risk: The plaintiff (1) had actual subjective knowledge of the specific risk; and (2) voluntarily encountered the danger. In modern comparative fault jurisdictions, implied assumption of risk is merged into the general comparative fault calculation.