Opinion ID: 848729
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: clarifying tort liability

Text: Traditionally, there are four elements to a tort: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Case v. Consumers Power Co., 463 Mich. 1, 6, 615 N.W.2d 17 (2000). All but the last are at issue in this case. Whether a defendant owes a duty to a plaintiff is a question of law. Simko v. Blake, 448 Mich. 648, 655, 532 N.W.2d 842 (1995). Recognition of a duty implicates various considerations: the relationship between the parties, the nature and foreseeability of the risk to be avoided, and the burdens and benefits of recognition. See Buczkowski v. McKay, 441 Mich. 96, 101-103, 490 N.W.2d 330 (1992). Among strangers who lack a special relationship to one another, the duty owed is most basic, that of reasonable conduct under the circumstances. Moning v. Alfono, 400 Mich. 425, 443, 254 N.W.2d 759 (1977), citing Restatement of Torts, 2d, § 283. Whether a defendant fulfilled or whether it breached its duty in a given case is a question of fact. Murdock v. Higgins, 454 Mich. 46, 53, 559 N.W.2d 639 (1997). In a controversy among strangers who lack a special relationship, the trier of fact must decide whether the defendant breached its duty to exercise reasonable care for the safety of others. The element of causation addresses whether a defendant's breach of its duty caused the plaintiff's injury. Causation has two components. The first is actual causation: whether the plaintiff's injury was caused by the defendant's breach of its duty toward the plaintiff. It is a question of fact, which is also resolved by the trier of fact. The second component is proximate or legal cause. A defendant's breach of duty is said to have proximately caused a plaintiff's injury only where the defendant reasonably could have foreseen the kind of harm that befell the plaintiff. It is unnecessary that the exact mechanism or sequence of events leading to the harm be reasonably foreseeable. Dobbs, Torts, Proximate Cause, ch. 10, § 180, p. 444 (2001). The foreseeability requirement arises from the principles that liability should be limited in a practical manner and should comport with notions of justice. Dobbs, § 181, p. 446. Proximate cause is a question of law. Moning at 440, 254 N.W.2d 759. The effect of foreseeability on duty and proximate cause confounded Judges Cardozo and Andrews in the famous case Palsgraf v. Long Island R. Co. [10] and continues to vex jurists today. This Court has adopted Judge Cardozo's view that whether a duty is owed depends on whether harm is reasonably foreseeable. See Moning at 439, 441, 254 N.W.2d 759.