proximate | Definition of proximate in English by Oxford Dictionaries
can be the actual cause without being the proximate cause. All the above .. will be mentioned in connection with the definitional consequences of peremptory duties a little .. rifle at a target, and B. is standing close to the target, so that there. The relationship between proximate supply and build‐to‐order capability the presence of supplier parks situated adjacent or close to vehicle assembly plants, . Definition of proximate - (especially of the cause of something) closest in relationship; immediate, nearly accurate; approximate.
In reintroducing the need for proximity as a central control device, it has been stated that these three stages are 'ingredients' of liability, rather than tests in their own right.
Claims that a doctor may owe a mother a duty of care to advise against child birth, and claims that police may owe an individual involved in criminal behavior a duty of care, have been barred. In McKay v Essex Area Health Authority,  a child's claim that a doctor should have advised his mother to seek an abortion was struck out; Whilst the Congenital Disabilities Civil Liability Act allows a course of action where negligence is the cause of a disability, wrongful life has remained barred for policy reasons.
The cry of distress is the summons to relief. The law does not ignore these reactions of the mind in tracing conduct to its consequences. It recognises them as normal. It places their efforts within the range of the natural and probable.
The wrong that imperils life is a wrong to the imperilled victim; it is a wrong also to his rescuer. Assuming the rescuer not to have acted unreasonably, therefore, it seems to me that he must normally belong to the class of persons who ought to be within the contemplation of the wrongdoer as being closely and directly affected by the latter's act.
In political terms it is less of an invasion of an individual's freedom for the law to require him to consider the safety of others in his actions than to impose upon him a duty to rescue or protect. Where an individual left his car without lights on at the side of a carriageway, he owed a duty of care to other drivers, despite the road being well lit, and was thus jointly liable when another driver collided with his car.
Such a relationship may be imposed by statute; the Occupiers' Liability acts for example impose a duty of care upon occupiers of land and properties to protect — in as far as is reasonable — others from harm. In other cases, a relationship may be inferred or imposed based on the need to protect an individual from third parties. In Stansbie v Troman  a decorator failed to secure a household he was decorating, resulting in a burglary while he was absent; it was found he owed a duty to the household owner to adequately secure the premises in his absence.
An education authority was found to owe a duty of care to motorists to protect against the risk of a young children in a public road; a driver was injured when forced to swerve, after a four-year-old child escaped and ran into the path of oncoming traffic. Nervous shock English Law The duty of care owed to protect others from psychiatric harm is different from that owed for physical harm, with additional control devices and distinctions present in order to limit liability.
Duty of care in English law
Victims in this category are known as primary victims, and are automatically owed a duty of care, as explained by Lord Lloyd: Once it is established that the defendant is under a duty of care to avoid causing personal injury to the plaintiff, it matters not whether the injury in fact sustained is physical, psychiatric or both.
There are several types of victims whom the court have recognised; employees who suffer excessive stress at work,  individuals witnessing the destruction of their property,  while those witnessing especially traumatising scenes involving others are secondary victims.
There must be a close tie of 'love and affection' between the primary victim, and the secondary victim witnessing the traumatic event. Pure economic loss in English Law Negligence which causes no physical or psychiatric harm, but causes economic loss to an individual or organisation, is termed pure economic loss. The idea that a duty of care may be owed to protect against the economic loss of others has been seen as problematic,  as the bounds of such liability are potentially unforeseeable, and difficult to establish.
Proximate cause - Wikipedia
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. 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 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.
Notwithstanding the already-complex nature of this and other questions relating to proximate or legal cause, this fluid standard could be misused by plaintiff-friendly or defense-favoring judges in attempts to vindicate their own personal philosophies regarding the appropriate reach of tort law. Controversy[ edit ] 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 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. For example, in the two famous Kinsman Transit cases from the 2nd Circuit exercising admiralty jurisdiction over a New York incidentit 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 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 sue Kinsman Ibut not the owners of the boats or cargoes which could not move until the river was reopened Kinsman II.
Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, published inthe American Law Institute argued that proximate cause should be replaced with scope of liability. The Institute added that it "fervently hopes" the parenthetical will be unnecessary in a future fourth Restatement of Torts. Under this rule, in order to determine whether a loss resulted from a cause covered under an insurance policya court looks for the predominant cause which sets into motion the chain of events producing the loss, which may not necessarily be the last 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 together to cause a loss, the loss is not covered.
ACC clauses frequently come into play in jurisdictions where property insurance does not normally include flood insurance and expressly excludes coverage for floods.
The classic example of how ACC clauses work is where a hurricane hits a building with wind and flood hazards at the same time. 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. 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.