Causation Flashcards
Causation
Proof that the defendant’s act is the actual and proximate cause of the
plaintiff’s harm is required in order to establish that a defendant should be held liable for
that particular harm.
Actual Cause or Cause in Fact
An actual cause is the cause which starts, ignites or
makes possible the result which follows, and which satisfies the “But For” or Substantial
Factor Test.
“But For” Test
The “But For” Test is used to establish actual cause. To apply the test,
the plaintiff must show that but for the defendant’s act, the plaintiff would not have been
injured.
Sine Qua Non
Sine qua non literally means “without which not.” The term relates to the
“But For” Test in that if a defendant’s act is the sine qua non of a plaintiff’s harm, then
the plaintiff’s harm would not have occurred in the absence of that act.
Applying the “But For” Test to Multiple Acts
he “But For” Test may be applied
where concurrent acts together produce an injury which would not have occurred but for
the concurrence. Where the concurrent acts are performed by different persons, both
persons are liable as concurrent tortfeasors.
Substantial Factor Test
The Substantial Factor Test is used to establish actual cause
where more than one act contributes to the plaintiff’s harm. The defendant is said to be an actual cause of the plaintiff’s harm if the defendant’s act is a substantial factor in bringing the harm about. This means that the defendant’s act contributed in more than a
trivial degree to the plaintiff’s injury.
The test applies where two or more acts combine to produce a single indivisible
injury regardless of whether either or any of the acts by itself would have caused the
injury.
Where more than one act could have caused the injury by itself, then each actor
may be held jointly and severally liable. However, where an act would not have caused
the injury without the other contributing acts, liability may be apportioned between the
tortfeasors.
Proximate Cause
An actual cause of harm is the proximate cause of that harm if the
act occurs in a natural and continuous sequence of events, unbroken by unforeseeable,
independent, intervening acts and results in the harm.
When a defendant’s act directly causes injury to the plaintiff without any intervening
causes, the majority of jurisdictions hold that act to be the proximate cause of harm
unless the harm is unforeseeable. However, in some jurisdictions, if the defendant’s act
directly causes harm, his act is the proximate cause regardless of whether the harm
was foreseeable or unforeseeable.
When a dependent intervening act occurs, the chain of causation is broken only if
the result of the dependent intervening act is highly unforeseeable. When an
independent intervening act occurs, the chain of causation is broken unless the result of
the independent act is foreseeable.
Thin Skull Plaintiff Rule
Under the Thin Skull Plaintiff Rule, also called the Eggshell
Plaintiff Rule, an exception is made to the general rule that an unforeseeable result of
the defendant’s act may break the chain of causation and negate liability. The defendant
“takes his plaintiff as he finds him” in that the defendant will be liable even where his act
produces an unforeseeable result if that result is due to the plaintiff’s uncommon
reaction or physical defect.
Intervening Act
An intervening act is one that occurs after the defendant’s act and
before the plaintiff’s injury.
Dependent Intervening Act
A dependent intervening act is one which would not have
occurred in the absence of the original negligence. It is nearly always considered to be
part of the chain of events set in motion by the original negligent act. Therefore, a
dependent intervening act breaks the chain of causation only if the act was highly
unforeseeable.
Independent Intervening Act
n independent intervening act is one which would have
occurred even in the absence of the original negligence. It breaks the chain of causation
unless the act or its result was foreseeable in light of the original negligent act.
Superseding Cause
A superceding cause is an intervening act which is sufficient to
prevent the defendant’s negligent act from being determined to be the proximate cause
of the plaintiff’s injury. Thus a superseding cause relieves the defendant of liability.
Generally, only an unforeseeable independent intervening act or a highly
unforeseeable dependent intervening act will break the chain of causation and be
established as a superseding cause.
