Causation Flashcards
For causation, need to establish
actual + proximate
list (3)
what tests are used for actual causation?
- but for test
- substantial factor test - aka cause in fact test
- unknown cause test
what is the but for test
P’s injury would NOT have occurred but for the D’s act or omission
How can D rebut P’s “but for”
“even if”
P would have still been injured “even if” D’s act or omission did not occur
what is the substantial factor test
If D’s negligent conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm, its deemed an actual cause of the harm
when is substantial factor test used
Two or more defendants who’s actions combine to harm the P but each D’s individual action alone could have caused the P’s injury
What is unknown cause test
BOP on the defendants to prove that they were not the cause for the P’s injuries
and if cannot prove then both are jointly and severally liable
What is proximate causation
an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury
How is proximate cause proven
P has to prove that it is fair to hold the D liable because such injuries were a foreseeable consequence of the breach;
There is a causal connection btwn D’s initial negligent act and P’s ultimate injury such that the act set of a chain of events that end in P’s injury.
What type of test is proximate causation
foreseeability test
use this phrase
“P can recover if
jury finds this was a foreseeable risk of … “
A state statute required that any freight train operating within the city limits be able to stop within 200 yards of applying its brakes. No fixed speed limit was established or particular type of braking mechanism required, but through either lowered speed or braking power, the 200-yard limit was required of all trains. Another statute prohibited vehicles from being within the railroad crossing when the lights on the warning signs are flashing or when the gates are lowered. One day, as a freight train was entering the city limits, the engineer saw a car stalled at a street crossing ahead. He immediately applied full braking power, but was unable to stop the train before it had hit and demolished the car. The driver of the car had gotten clear before the impact, but brought suit against the freight line for property damage to the $25,000 car. At trial, the parties stipulated that the car was stalled within the crossing while the warning lights were flashing. Evidence at trial established that the distance from the point at which the engineer applied the train’s brakes to the point of impact was 150 yards, and from the braking point to the point at which the train finally stopped was 225 yards. No other evidence of negligence was presented by the driver. At the end of the driver’s case, the freight line moved for a directed verdict.
Should the court grant the motion?
A No, because the freight line was negligent per se.
B No, because the freight line was strictly liable for its violation of the braking statute.
C Yes, because the driver’s car was on the freight line’s tracks in violation of the crossing statute.
D Yes, because the freight line’s violation of the braking statute was not the cause in fact of the accident.
D Yes, because the freight line’s violation of the braking statute was not the cause in fact of the accident.
The court should grant the motion because the driver did not establish the cause-in-fact element of his prima facie case against the freight line.
The primary test for cause in fact (actual cause) is the “but for” test: An act is the cause in fact of an injury when the injury would not have occurred but for the act.
Even though the freight line had a duty created by the statute to be able to stop its train within 200 yards of first braking, and breached that duty (establishing the first two elements of the driver’s prima facie case), it must still be shown that the collision would not have occurred in the absence of the breach. Because the car was only 150 yards from the point of braking, even a train in compliance with the statute would have struck it. Since no other evidence of negligence has been presented, the motion should be granted.
(C) is not correct because the court will not reach the issue of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence in this case because the prima facie case for the defendant’s negligence has not been established.
Furthermore, establishing the plaintiff’s contributory negligence by violation of a statute uses the same rules that govern whether a statute can establish the defendant’s negligence.
Hence, the driver’s violation of the crossing statute may be excused if the trier of fact determines that compliance was beyond his control because his car stalled.
