Causation

Question 1

what did Aristotle call it?

Answer 1

“efficient cause”

Question 2

How causation is defined =

Answer 2

a question of law

Question 3

Question of law terms for causation

Answer 3

proximity & foreseeability (judge will determine)

Question 4

A ruling on causation as a Matter of Law

Answer 4

means that reasonable minds could not differ on causation as a Matter of FACT (Formally)

Question 5

To support chain of proximate causation (law) courts look at

Answer 5

“natural & continuous sequence of events” & “natural & probable consequences”

Question 6

Intervening cause may become a

Answer 6

superseding cause (may) that relieves the earlier actor of liablity

Question 7

Palsgraf v. Long Island RR (1928)

Answer 7

Justice andrews- orbit could describe causation also, either of question of law or fact.

Question 8

scientific causation

Answer 8

but, for causation

Question 9

sine qua non

Answer 9

without which there is nothing

Question 10

Substantiality Factors between plaintiffs act & defendant’s injury (Restatement)

Answer 10

a) other possible factors & extent involved as causal to plaintiff’s injury
b) whether the def’s action yielded forces in active & continuous operation up to the time of injury (absent a position of apparent safety)
c) lapse of time
d) lapse of space, physical distance (*added in)

Question 11

If court determines causation does not FAIL as a matter of law, does that mean causation is proven for case?

Answer 11

NO. determines only that EVIDENCE is “sufficient to support” causation as a matter of law, thus making it a question of fact for the jury. (or judge/fact-finder if no jury)

Question 12

Goat on Highway case

Answer 12

Read v. Buckner:
violation of statute caused accident, but also Goats roaming caused accident. But goats not being sued, so look at stat. violation. (goat was scientific cause, but viol of law was legal aka prox. cause)

Question 13

weighing risk to plaintiff vs.

Answer 13

risk of def. to be liable to all the world

Question 14

Landes & Posner: causation & economic approach

Answer 14

ex) (Gorris v. Scott) animals washed overboard-liable, economic analysis of not having pens to keep animals in was same (should’ve had pens) BUT statute’s intent was to have pens to avoid animals from contagion/disease. So court says not liable-cuz statute did not create a duty to avoid that TYPE of accident.
- Neg per se is based on breach of statutory duty so to get out of it “causation to the rescue”

Question 15

Causation to Rescue (Landes & Posner)

Answer 15

where before the legislation didn’t allow the cost/benefit analysis (where could be different calculations for diff results-ex, higher walls would have kept animals from going overboard, but not from disease=overdeterring or underdettering-cuz not always same plntf/hazard/harm); causation analysis kicks in to let courts achieve the economic sufficient outcome.

Question 16

“Substantive causal analysis is really a groping for economically sound solutions”

Answer 16

Landes & Posner:

administrative cost considerations get smuggled into the causal analysist

Question 17

when economic calculus should NOT determine liability in statutory violations

Answer 17

Klein V. Herlim Realty:
statutory violation that air warden injured cuz had to come in to put out lightbulb during air raid (tip & fall). Statute was written to protect citizens from air raids not to make def. liable for a trip & fall. Violation did NOT prox. cause the injury, it happened from an intervening accident that was not foreseeable to def.

Question 18

Language of causation

Answer 18

“not enough that harm would not have occurred had def. not been negligent, the negligence must also be a substantial factor in bringing about plntf’s harm” (Klein)

Question 19

but, for

Answer 19

question of fact

Question 20

proximity

Answer 20

court says is quest of law (duncan v. rzonca)

Question 21

Duncan v. Rzonca

foreseeability concepts &scope of duty

Answer 21

kid hits alarm in bank, officer responds injured.
underlying wrong-failure to supervise child
award-officer injury
(not economically efficient result)
Foreseeability=policy issue (but policy key for duty) Do we want to say that def owes duty to officer???

Question 22

Judge says to you “Counselor, causation is a question for a jury” then I say……

Answer 22

“but your Honor, proximity is a question of law.” :)

if we still disagree—then prob to jury

Question 23

foreseeablity (prox cause as a term of art)

Answer 23

linchpin in causation as question of law

Question 24

proximity, intervening causes, “position of safety”, “natural & probable consequences” (proximate cause as a term of art)

Answer 24

questions of fact

Question 25

Breach

Answer 25

reasonable person standard

Question 26

injury

Answer 26

physical injury to plaintiff’s body or property

Question 27

why might not want to do risk/utility balancing in a duty analysis?

Answer 27

should be done by legislature, if decide policy question here then becomes question of law for all cases.