causation

Question 1

what are the two ways to establish cause-in-fact?

Answer 1

But-For Causation or Substantial Factor Test

Question 2

define “But-For” causation

Answer 2

accident/injury would not have occurred “but for” D’s negligent conduct

Question 3

was “but-for” causation established in the Dapp/Larson case with the doormat?

Answer 3

no - causation based on speculation not enough to support claim

Question 4

what case first applied the “substantial factor” test?

Answer 4

Anderson - multiple fires - D not liable because there were other fires going toward the property

Question 5

what’s the lost opportunity doctrine?

Answer 5

allows a P to recover when D’s negligence possibly caused P’s injury

Question 6

what are the three types of lost opportunity doctrine?

Answer 6

pure lost chance, proportional, substantial possibility

Question 7

what’s the pure lost chance approach to the lost opportunity doctrine?

Answer 7

full damages if P shows D’s negligence decreased P’s chance even slightly of avoiding injury

Question 8

what’s the proportional approach to the lost opportunity doctrine?

Answer 8

P’s recovery limited to the % chance lost multiplied by the total amt of damages

Question 9

what’s the substantial possibility approach to the lost opportunity doctrine?

Answer 9

P must show there is a substantial possibility that the D’s negligence caused injury

Question 10

what did the Weymers case say about lost opportunity doctrine?

Answer 10

only applicable in wrongful death cases

Question 11

what’s the direct cause test of establishing proximate cause?

Answer 11

D is responsible for the entire flow of evens until an independent, intervening cause breaks the chain of causation

Question 12

what are the two limitations of the direct cause test of proximate cause?

Answer 12

imposes liability in cases where results are unforeseeable, denies liability after ANY indep/intervening cause

Question 13

what was the landmark case for the direct cause test of proximate cause?

Answer 13

Polemis - plank fell in ship, started fire (unforeseeable!)

Question 14

what was the landmark case and its finding regarding the foreseeability test of proximate cause?

Answer 14

Palsgraf - only liable for foreeseeable damages within zone of danger

Question 15

define the “eggshell skull doctrine”

Answer 15

if any personal injury to P was foreseeable, then D is deemed to have cause ALL of the injury that results, even if some were from before accident

Question 16

what happened in the Stoleson case?

Answer 16

nitroglycerin - D was liable fo rany pre-existing conditions of P that might have been aggravated by D’s negligence

Question 17

what is an intervening cause?

Answer 17

a force that comes into play after D’s conduct and contributes to the production of the harm

Question 18

what is a superseding cause?

Answer 18

the type of intervening force that cuts off D’s liability

Question 19

when does an intervening cause become a superseding cause that cuts off liability?

Answer 19

if intervening cause and ultimate harm is unforeseeable, then it’s superseding and cuts off liability