Proximate Cause

Yesterday in torts we discussed a case where a driver hits the bumper of another man in a car. The man that the driver hits had a history of severe mental illness. However, the minor injuries inflicted by the fender bender trigger the mental illness (we're not allowed to question the legitimacy of that part because of the expert testimony and that the driver did not object to this part) and the driver ends up paying big damages. Where do we draw the line of causation? The jury finds that the driver is responsible for retriggering the mental illness and awards the injured man a lot of money. Small fender bender, big damages: is it fair or just? A lot of people were skeptical. But when the professor changed the victim from a schizophrenic to a pregnant woman, everyone agreed that the driver should pay big damages if the fender bender induced a miscarriage.

I think the reason why a lot of us like our tort cases is because we have to use the same kind of reasoning that we have to use in every day life. Where do we draw the line? Even if something caused another thing, is the causation too remote? What excuses do we allow?

We all know that our upbringing greatly shapes who we are today. But how much do we allow people to contribute to their childhood and how much do we expect people to overcome those circumstances and obstacles? The obvious childhood hardships that we think of which effect adulthood are major traumas like divorce, abuse, family alcholism, etc. (Think Mark Foley who recently came out as a sexually abused, alcoholic.) But what about the smaller things. How much can we blame our behavior today on having overbearing parents, parents who worked too much, or even being an only child? How much of our past is a proximate cause of our actions today? Just like the law, that line is hard to draw in our everyday life.