California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCTortsMedium
A professional landscaper, while installing an irrigation system in a client's backyard, accidentally severs an underground fiber optic cable belonging to the local internet service provider (ISP). The ISP experiences a widespread service outage affecting thousands of customers for several hours. The ISP sues the landscaper for the lost revenue and repair costs. Which of the following elements of negligence is MOST likely to be disputed by the landscaper?
- AProximate cause
- BDuty of care
- CBreach of duty
- DActual damages
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Proximate cause
The landscaper would most likely dispute proximate cause, arguing that the widespread outage and resulting financial losses were not a foreseeable consequence of severing a single cable, or that intervening factors broke the chain of causation. While duty, breach, and damages are relatively clear, the scope of liability for such extensive harm is often contested under proximate cause.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. A professional landscaper owes a duty of care to avoid damaging property, including underground utilities, making this element less likely to be disputed.
- C. Severing an underground cable during installation clearly indicates a breach of the landscaper's duty to perform their work carefully, making this element less likely to be disputed.
- D. The ISP's lost revenue and repair costs constitute clear actual damages, making this element less likely to be disputed.
Proximate Cause
Proximate cause, or legal cause, limits a defendant's liability to those harms that are a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their negligent act.
- Focuses on foreseeability of the harm.
- Determines the scope of liability.
- Intervening causes can break the chain of proximate causation if unforeseeable.
Memory trick: Don't Be Careless, Dude!