Question

The Dissent argues that the line between causation in fact and foreseeable causation is arbitrary. Remember that the railroad employee had no reason to know that the package contained explosives. So who does he owe a duty to? On the other hand, at what point should a person stop being responsible for all of the downstream consequences of his actions? For example, if you drop a lit match at the gas station and the explosion causes the elderly man on the next block to have a heart attack. Your act directly caused his injury, but should you be responsible? What about if you left your car in neutral at the top of the hill and it rolled down and killed a child. What if the child’s mother, already depressed, begins taking opioids and robs her neighbor’s house to get money to pay for her drugs? Are you responsible for that? At what point should the line be drawn? Discuss fully.

Answer 1

The issue of responsibility for downstream consequences depends on the definition of property rights. The person or entity with the legal responsibility should bear the costs of reducing the risk of harm. In some cases, responsibility becomes less clear when the consequences are more remote.

Step-by-step explanation:

The issue of responsibility for the downstream consequences of one's actions is a complex one that can be approached from a legal perspective. According to Coase, the resolution of this issue depends on the clear definition of property rights. Property rights determine the legal responsibility of individuals and entities involved in a situation and who should bear the costs associated with reducing the risk of harm.

In the case of the railroad employee, the question of duty arises. The employee owed a duty to the railroad company, which owns the trains and tracks. If the railroad company has a well-defined legal responsibility for the safe transport of goods, then it would be responsible for any harm caused by the transportation of the package containing explosives. On the other hand, the farmer also has a property right not to have their field burned, but if it is determined that they did not take reasonable precautions to prevent sparks from hitting their field, they may bear some responsibility as well.

As for the examples given, the responsibility for the downstream consequences of one's actions becomes less direct and more remote. In the case of dropping a lit match at a gas station, it can be argued that the person who dropped the match should bear responsibility for the harm caused, including the heart attack of the elderly man. However, when it comes to leaving a car in neutral at the top of a hill, the responsibility becomes less clear. While the person may be responsible for the initial act that led to the car rolling down and killing a child, it becomes morally and legally more tenuous to hold them responsible for the subsequent actions of the child's mother.