Actual Causation

Question 1

ACTUAL CAUSE

Answer 1

“CAUSE IN FACT” or “BUT-FOR” CAUSE
(Sine qua non – “without which not.”)
• Usually, issues of actual causation are left to the Jury.

Question 2

But For Test

Answer 2

“If it wasn’t for the defendant’s behavior, would the Plaintiff have been injured??”

o Works well with Single Tortfeasors, but not Multiple Tortfeasors.

Question 3

Proving Actual Causation: preponderance of the evidence

Answer 3

• Circumstantial evidence or proof sufficient to establish that a reasonable person would infer a probable connection between carelessness and injury.

Question 4

Skinner v. Square D. Co. (Mich. 1994)

Answer 4

(Defective Light Switch kills man)
Holding: Plaintiff’s failed to offer evidence from which reasonable minds could infer the alleged defect caused the decedent’s death.

• Theories of Causation – lacked a basis in established fact. (mere conjecture)
• Lack logical sequence of cause and effect. (also conjecture)
• Other possibilities equally possible.

Question 5

Multiple Necessary Causes

Answer 5

• When each of 2/+ acts combined function as a necessary condition of an injury
• Each is the actual (But For) cause.

Question 6

McDonald V. Robinson (Iowa 1929)

Answer 6

(multiple but for cause)
• Both Drivers = Negligent
Rule:
• 2+ Persons contribute to and cause an accident.
• But For each of the 2+ persons, the accident would not have happened. (multiple necessary causes)
• Joint/ Several liability.

Question 7

Aldridge v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Answer 7

(Multiple Sufficient Causes / Substantial Factor Test/ Expert opinions)
Aldridge V. Goodyear Holding:
• Evidence does not show GY supplied chemicals were alone sufficient to cause harm.
• Insufficient proof of actual causation.
- Failure of expert to address alternative causes means the testimony can be excluded.

Question 8

BALBOS CASE

Answer 8

Rule: Substantial Factor Test:

      - Factor that a reasonable person would consider to be independently sufficient to cause the harm.
      - It must be more than a remote or trivial factor.  
      - It does not have to be the only cause of the harm. 

Balbos Holding: Asbestos is in itself sufficient to cause harm so there is adequate proof of causation.

• Proving causation with Asbestos is much easier because it causes a “signature illness,” certain lung diseases.
• Proof of general causation is not as hard as proof of individual causation of a P’s injuries.

Question 9

Admissibility of Expert Opinions:

Answer 9

Not just “Ipse Dixit” - He, himself, said it.

• must be reliable (based on scientific knowledge)
• must be relevant (must assist the trier of fact)

Question 10

Admissibility of Expert Opinions

Factors to be considered:

Answer 10

1) whether the theory has been tested.
2) whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review.
3) known or potential rate of error of method used.
4) degree of method’s or conclusions acceptance within scientific community.

Question 11

Summers V. Tice (hunting accident)

Answer 11

Prerequisites for Alternative Liability:

• 2 or more have independently acted.
• substantially similar conduct.
• conduct equally likely to cause the injury.
• Only one d’s action was the actual cause.

50/50 (alternative Liability / Burden Shifting Liability)

• Policy reasons
  - Injury was no fault of P.
  - Holding neither plaintiff liable would be unfair to P.