this is my tort final exam question from last year.
Can someone help answering these?
In Gibson v. Garcis, the court holds that an intervening cause that is negligent and/or unforseeable does not necessarily supersede the negligence of the original actor. In Section 435(2) and 448 of the restatement of torts, however, two circumstances are identified in which an intervening cause does become a superseding cause; when the intervening cause appears in retrospect to be highly extraordinary or when it is an intentional tort or a crime. since the original act of negligence is equally dangerous and unreasonable, even under these circumstances, why should the negligent actor be relieved of liability?