Causation

Question 1

Stubbs v. Rochester

Answer 1

[Typhoid in water supply, multiple possible causes - cause in fact] P has burden of proving that D’s negligence was more likely than not the cause of his injury. Reasonable certainty test (preponderance of evidence) Where there are two or more possible causes of the plaintiff’s injury, one of which is the defendant’s negligent conduct, a plaintiff is required to establish facts allowing for a reasonable inference that the defendant’s conduct was more than likely the cause of his injury.

Question 2

Zuchowicz v. United States

Answer 2

[double dosage rare disease – cause in fact] Substantial Factor Approach – To prove causation, defendant’s conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the plaintiff’s injury. It follows that when a negative side effect is demonstrated to be the result of a drug, and the drug was wrongly prescribed in an unapproved and excessive dosage (i.e. a strong causal link has been shown), the plaintiff who is injured has generally shown enough (met burden) to permit the finder of fact to conclude that the excessive dosage was a substantial factor in producing the harm.

Question 3

Williams v. Utica College

Question 4

Anderson v. Minneapolis Ralway

Answer 4

[RR causes fire - multiple sufficient causes] court employed the “substantial factor” test to determine whether the defendant’s fire was a cause of the harm. We need to try and deter potential tortfeasors from committing torts by trying to look at these fires independently. Someone who negligently starts a fire may be liable if the fire damages a property in combination with a fire of unknown origin, and either fire would have damaged the property independently of the other, if the negligently started fire was a material factor in the destruction.

Question 5

Palsgraf v. Long Island

Answer 5

[RR station explosion]

Question 6

Petition of Kinsman Transit Co