[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Faceman, in the tort suits I mentioned as the appropriate solution to this idea, there is the notion of "foreseeability." Take negligence, a tort, a typical tort, which has the following elements (all must be met): 1. Duty (e.g. often the "reasonable person" standard of care) 2. Breach of that Duty 3. which is the actual cause of.... 4. and proximate cause (also known as legal cause) of... 5. HARM Now, proximate cause (a/k/a legal cause) is a foreseeability test. Hypo: Guy slams his door on gas attendant's thumb. He will face a likely-successful negligence suit from the attendant, assuming he was not reasonably careful in closing the door. However, the attendant yells, startling a mime across the street, who lets go of a balloon, which floats into the air, popping quite close to the face of Snoopy flying by in a doghouse biplane, startling Snoopy, and causing Snoopy to crash to earth, where his plane unfortunately lands on Reese Witherspoon's little Pomeranian she is walking. Now, is the man liable to Reese and Charlie Brown for killing their pets? Likely not. While the man was the *actual* cause of the animals' demise, he could not have reasonably foreseen that those actions would occur from his initial irresponsible tortious act of slamming the door. So, the law will not hold him accountable for those things so unlikely they cannot be foreseen. Thus, while actual cause exists, "proximate" or "legal" cause does not. That'll be $50 for the legal lesson. Test on Friday.

TL, what if that had been a Balrog flying around instead of snoopy? Would htat change anything?