Washington Law Review


Courts have long sought to develop rational methods both for limiting a tortfeasor's liability and allocating damages among multiple tortfeasors. Courts developed the doctrine of proximate cause to address the first concern, employing superseding cause analysis when multiple forces produce an injury. In admiralty, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved the second concern by adopting pure comparative fault in . In Exxon Co. v. Sofec, Inc., the Court endorsed the continued use of superseding cause in admiralty cases, holding that it does not conflict with pure comparative fault. This Comment argues that the Sofec Court's method of superseding cause analysis does indeed conflict with pure comparative fault and should therefore be abandoned. This Comment concludes that superseding cause, regardless of its method of analysis, does not add to the doctrine of proximate cause and should be eliminated.

First Page