Actual Cause

Question 1

ACTUAL CAUSE = “CAUSE IN FACT” or “BUT-FOR” CAUSE

Answer 1

(Sine qua non – “without which not.”)
• had the Defendant not behaved in a certain way, an injury would not have occurred.
• 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??”
• Yes – a lot of reasons for injury
• No – Defendant behavior was “cause in fact”.
o Works well with Single Tortfeasors, but not Multiple Tortfeasors.

Question 3

Proving Actual Causation

Answer 3

preponderance of the evidence
• 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

Holding: Plaintiff’s failed to offer evidence from which reasonable minds could infer the alleged defect caused the decedent’s death.

Analysis:
• 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

Rule: Proof of Actual Causation =

Answer 5

substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could conclude “more likely than not” BUT FOR the defendant’s conduct, the plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.
• Logical sequence of cause and effect, more likely than not, to be the cause of injury.
• Causation cannot be inferred because of an injury (except in Res Ipsa Loquitur)

Question 6

Multiple Necessary Causes

Answer 6

• When each of 2/+ acts combined function as the but-for actual cause of an injury
• Each is the actual (But For) cause.

Question 7

Multiple Sufficient Causes:

Answer 7

• When each act would by itself have generated an injury.
• But injury happens to have resulted from the confluence of those 2/+ acts
• Each act is deemed to be an actual cause of the injury.
• Even though neither satisfies the but-for test.

Question 8

Substantial Factor Test:

Answer 8

• 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.

Question 9

BALBOS CASE (ASBESTOS)

Answer 9

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 10

Aldridge v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Multiple Sufficient Causes / Substantial Factor Test/ Expert opinions

Answer 10

Aldridge V. Goodyear Holding:
• Evidence does not show GY supplied chemicals were alone sufficient to cause harm.
• Insufficient proof of actual causation.

Aldridge V. Goodyear Holding: Failure of expert to address alternative causes means the testimony can be excluded.

Question 11

Admissibility of Expert Opinions:

Answer 11

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 12

Factors to be Considered in the Admissibility of Expert Opinions:

Answer 12

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 13

Alternative Liability:

Answer 13

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