Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A limitation on an actor's liability to those harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious or criminal. The doctrine confines recovery or conviction to injuries falling within the type of danger the defendant's negligence or unlawful act created. An intervening force does not break the chain when the resulting harm remains inside that original range of risk.
Sources & Authorities· 4 sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Restatements
Casebooks
Study Supplements
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Storm Surge Destroys Balconies
Ocean Crest Resort installed lightweight balcony railings despite warnings they could fail in ordinary coastal storms. A rare record storm surge and high tide later undermined the cliff, shearing off large sections of the building that crashed onto beach restrooms and injured patron Maria. The resort's negligence created a risk of guest falls or localized balcony collapses during routine weather, not wholesale structural failure onto unrelated facilities. Because the actual harm fell outside the scope of risk created by the defective railings, the extraordinary natural event operated as a superseding cause.
Assault Triggers Fatal Stress
Tracy attacked Alcee during a confrontation. The deputy chief medical examiner concluded that the emotional and physical stress from the assault contributed to Alcee's death from an underlying heart condition. Tracy's conduct created a risk of death through direct physical injury. Because the fatal stress remained within the scope of that risk, the court held that Tracy's negligence caused the death for criminal liability purposes.
Cannon v. State181 A.3d 615, 617 (Del. 2018)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
How does the scope-of-risk test differ from traditional foreseeability analysis?+
The scope-of-risk test asks whether the harm that occurred is of the same general type as the harm that made the conduct tortious or criminal. Traditional foreseeability may extend liability further by asking only whether some harm was predictable. The Restatement (Third) approach limits liability to harms resulting from the risks that rendered the conduct wrongful.
Supporting sources
Does an extraordinary natural event always relieve a defendant of liability under the scope-of-risk doctrine?+
No. An extraordinary natural event breaks the chain only when it produces a harm different in kind from the risk that made the conduct negligent. When the resulting injury matches the original risk, the event does not relieve liability even if the force itself was unusual.
When does an intervening criminal act fall within the scope of risk created by a defendant's negligence?+
An intervening criminal act remains within the scope of risk when the defendant realized or should have realized the likelihood that the negligent conduct would create an opportunity for the crime. Warnings about third-party behavior that the defendant ignored can establish that the criminal act was a foreseeable escalation rather than a superseding cause.
Supporting sources
Can a defendant be liable for manslaughter when the victim's preexisting condition contributes to death?+
Yes. Liability attaches if the defendant's conduct created or increased the risk of death and that risk materialized through the victim's vulnerability. The scope-of-risk inquiry focuses on whether the stress or injury inflicted was the type of harm the unlawful act threatened, not on the precise medical pathway.
Supporting sources
ContractsDefenses to enforceability · Mistake and misunderstandingUBEFoundational