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 duty owed and the line of responsibility in legal terms depend on the concepts of foreseeability and causation. A person owes a duty to those who could reasonably be harmed by their actions if they were aware of the danger. Responsibility for downstream consequences is determined by the concept of proximate cause, with a limit to how far the responsibility extends.

Step-by-step explanation:

In legal terms, who a person owes a duty to and when a person should stop being responsible for the consequences of their actions depends on the concept of causation and foreseeability.

Regarding the duty owed, it is generally determined by whether a person could have reasonably foreseen the harm that resulted from their actions. For example, in the case of the railroad employee who unknowingly handles a package containing explosives, they owe a duty to anyone who could be harmed by their actions if they were aware of the danger. In this case, the employee would owe a duty to anyone who could be harmed by an explosion caused by mishandling of the package.

Concerning the responsibility for downstream consequences, the concept of proximate cause is applied. Proximate cause refers to the idea that a person is responsible for the consequences of their actions that are reasonably foreseeable. However, there is a limit to how far the responsibility extends. The line is drawn when the consequences become too remote or unforeseeable from the original action. In the example of dropping a lit match at a gas station, causing an explosion that triggers a heart attack in an elderly man blocks away, it may be argued that the consequences are too remote and unforeseeable.

Ultimately, determining the duty owed and the line of responsibility is a matter of law and involves considering factors such as foreseeability, proximate cause, and the concept of reasonable care.