Download University of Pennsylvania Law Review and American Law Register Book in PDF, Epub and Kindle
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1915 edition. Excerpt: ...be liable even where strangers act negligently in assisting one injured by the defendant's wrong.1 'Crain v. Petrie, 6 Hill, 522 (N. Y. 1844); Hughes v. McDonough, 43 N. J. L. 459 (1881); Cate v. Cate, 50 N. H. 144 (1870); Fawcett v. R. R., 24 W. Va. 759 (1884). See also Cooley on Torts (3rd Ed.), p. 101, and Currier v. McKee, 99 Me. 364 (1904). 'There is an arbitrary exception to the modern conception of proximate and remote cause in the case of an originator of slander or libel, who is not liable for the results of its unauthorized repetition, no matter how clearly such repetition may fall within the causation sequenoe. See the case of Shoe flin v. Cotfey, 162 N. Y. 12 (1900), and Blake Odgers' "Libel and Slan er" (4th ed.), pp. 388-389, where it is said, "The repetition by a free agent is neither a direct nor a natural result." 'L R., 3 Q. B. Div. 327 (1878)., It was not long moreover before the courts came to regard even the fact that strangers have intervened negligently with no color of cause whatever for the interference, as insufiicient in itself to break the chain of causation. So the "habitually thoughtless, though legally culpable, inadvertences of careless people"8 are not sufficient to render the defendant free from liability and his act is considered the proximate cause despite the "occasional negligence which is one of the ordinary incidents of human life" which might have intervened. Cases of this sort crowd the reports and are invariably disposed of in accordance with this view. In this category fall the many cases where workmen are injured by the negligent use by fellow employees of defective tools and machinery;' where materials carelessly piled or placed in...