Read the following case study. Your answer must start with a decision on the cas

Question

Read the following case study.   Your answer must start with a decision on the case.  Make certain you provide a complete reason in defense of your answer.

Rosten v. Bradley

Henry Rosten was walking on a city sidewalk with his small son. An automobile driven by Bradley went out of control, ran up onto the sidewalk, and struck a fire hydrant and Rosten's son. The car did not touch Rosten, but the shock and fright caused him to suffer a serious heart attack. Rosten sued Bradley for compensation for the injury to his heart, his medical expenses, his lost wages, and the cost of therapy to treat the post-traumatic stress symptoms he has suffered since the incident - all Rosten claimed were caused by Bradley's negligence. At trial, Bradley responded by arguing that because he never actually hit Rosten, he should be held legally responsible for any of these damages. Decide this case, and explain your answer in depth.

Explanation / Answer

Bradley would be held responsible for the damages caused to rosten.

Reason : This is a case based on the principle of Breaking the chain (or novus actus interveniens, literally "new act intervening") which refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.

Here, since, there was no new intervening act which caused heart attack to Rosten, Bradley would be responsible for damages caused Rosten.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse R
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.