Causation

Question 1

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Answer 1

The action speaks for itself. Doctrine establishes breach of duty but also establishes causation. (Bryne v. Boadle- barrels of flour do not just fall out of the sky)
(Counter-example to Bryne=Wakelin)

Three elements:

• Who was in control?
• Contributory negligence?
• Can ∆ prove he wasn’t negligent or shift blame elsewhere?

Indirect or circumstantial evidence. Negligence can be assumed from occurrence of the accident

United Airlines Hudson River Landing-planes don’t just fall out of the sky. There must have been negligence at some point along the way.

Question 2

Uncertainty in Medical Malpractice

Answer 2

π does not have the burden to prove exactly which doctor or nurse caused the harm or exactly which instrumentality was used, but only that both factors existed. (Ybarra v. Spangard)

Burden is shifted to the doctors/nurses that forces them to break conspiracy pf silence in order to determine who was negligent.

Question 3

But For Causation Test

Answer 3

But for ∆ conduct would π have sustained injuries?

Defense will try to show that there was a break between chain of events from the breach of duty to injury.

Question 4

Duty of Care v. Causation

Answer 4

Duty of care is inquired ipon a more gneral level-connected to idea of objkectiveness
Causation will inquire on a more specific level based on the facts

Question 5

Did the breach cause the harm?

Answer 5

Two parts:

1. Factual causation- but for ∆ conduct wold π sustained harm?
2. Legal (proximate causation

Why do we need both? Because Factual causation is too broad. The ripple is endless. Proximate cause draws the line on where ∆ is is responsible.

Question 6

Proximate Cause

Answer 6

Two types of test:

1. Directness Test-was π’s injury a direct result of ∆’s behavior or was there something that broke the chain of causation?
2. Foresight test (forward-looking)_- Was π’s type of harm a foreseeable result of ∆’s behavior- from time defendant acted?
   - Foreseeability in Causation is different because it is individualized since it only relates to a particular defendant, whereas foreseeability in Duty/Breach is related to society in general.

Question 7

More than one wrongdoer?

Answer 7

Ybarra, Kingston

Multiple ∆ and can’t say for sure who actually caused the damage –> each wrongdoer will be held liable for causing harm

Question 8

Joint and Several Liability

Answer 8

Each ∆ can be held responsible for entire loss even though jury can determine percentage of fault. The liability burden moves to the defendants to prove they didn’t cause the harm alleged. They are in a better position to say what actually happened. (Kingston v. Chicago RR)

Question 9

Several liability

Answer 9

each defendant is ONLY responsible for his proportionate share of the harm. (Sindell)

Critique of this is the dissent from Sindell- Causation has become symbolic instead of actual cause.

Question 10

Joint Liability

Answer 10

Each ∆ is held responsible for the entirety of the loss.

1. Either ∆1 or ∆2 is held liable for 100% of harm. Can’t divide responsibility or so one ∆ goes free.
2. This makes sense if you have one defendant who is insolvent. The harm is indivisible although you can indemnify the other ∆ (Kingston v. Chicago RR, SIndell )

Question 11

Indemnity

Answer 11

Liable party sues codefendant for entire costs of damages

Question 12

Concert of Action Theory

Answer 12

If you cannot apportion damages because the harm is indivisible and two people’s actions were in unison (not with nature/God), then they are said to be jointly liable (Kingston v. Chicago

Question 13

Daubert Standard

Answer 13

Under the Daubert standard, the factors that may be considered in determining whether the methodology is valid are: (1) whether the theory or technique in question can be and has been tested; (2) whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; (3) its known or potential error rate; (4) the existence and maintenance of standards controlling its operation; and (5) whether it has attracted widespread acceptance within a relevant scientific community.

Question 14

Frye Standard

Answer 14

A court applying the Frye standard must determine whether or not the method by which that evidence was obtained was generally accepted by experts in the particular field in which it belongs. The Frye standard has been abandoned by many states and the federal courts in favor of the Daubert standard, but it is still law in some states.

Question 15

Proximate Cause

Answer 15

A defendant is only liable for the proximate result of his own acts, not for remote damages (Ryan v. NY Central RR)

Court found no liability because liability with no end would be the destruction of all civilized society

Cuts off liability when harm isn’t foreseeable. (Berry)

Question 16

Economic Incentive Argument

Answer 16

if we place the burden on each party to protect his own house, then each person will obtain insurance and will share a small burden in insuring his own property. The party is in the best position to protect his own house because he knows how much insurance to buy based on his own needs.

Question 17

Corrective Justice Argument

Answer 17

Homeowner hasn’t done anything wrong and thereby shouldn’t be responsible for insuring his own house due to another person’s wrong.

Question 18

Four Standards of Proximate Cause

Answer 18

1- Natural and probable Cause
2-Foreseeable Consequence
3-Direct Consequence (Time/Place)
4- Substantial Factor

Question 19

Intervening Act and Superseding Cause

Answer 19

Central of Georgia v. Price- it was not foreseeable π would be injured from a lamp exploding in the hotel when the train missed the stop.

Contrast Hines where it was foreseeable that π would be raped when forced to walk through a rough neighborhod after dark for over a mile.

An unforeseeable event that interrupts the chain of causation, becoming the actual cause of the accident.

Question 20

Natural Probable Cause

Answer 20

: a consequence that one could reasonably expect to result from an act

Did ∆ have some control over the situation and could he prevent harm? See: Ryan for four standards. (Berry-even though there was contributory negligence and negligence per se, neither of those would cause the harm that resulted)

Uninterrupted sequence of events involving forces in which ∆ has control. For example, in Ryan the flames spread and the court said it wasn’t a natural sequence and ∆ didn’t have control. Likewise in Palsgraf could ∆ have control over the package? Possibly. Wagner also uses natural and probable causation. Rescue is natural and probable

Question 21

Wagner

Answer 21

Is the rescue an independent action in which π knew what he was doing and therefore cuts off RR responsibility? Or is the harm of rescue within the risk? No, rescue was the inevitable consequence of the harm-Emergency begets the man. Rescue is the natural and probable consequence of harm.

Question 22

Foreseeability

Answer 22

Is the consequence foreseeable? Did the breach of the duty of care cause this action? Is it foreseeable that when you push a passenger onto a moving train you might dislodge something that he is carrying? (Palsgraf) Yes, but it’s not foreseeable that the package will explode.

If it’s not reasonable to expect the foreseeability of the danger, then there is no proximate cause!

Question 23

Direct Consequence

Answer 23

Injury must be close in space and time to the action. Injury cannot be too distant from the event.

Question 24

Substantial Factor

Answer 24

See Gonzalez. The defendant is liable if their negligence was a substantial factor in the plaintiff’s injury

Question 25

Defenses to Proximate Cause

Answer 25

1. Assumption of Risk

2. Contributory Negligence

Question 26

Hints to help talk about proximate cause

Answer 26

1. Substantial Factor in bringing about accident and producing the effect (might not be the only thing going on, but for his negligence …)
2. Was there a direct connection between them without too many intervening causes?
3. Is the effect of cause on result not too attenuated
4. Is the cause likely to produce effect?
5. By exercise of prudent foresight could the result be foreseen?

Question 27

Contributory Negligence

Answer 27

Complete Defense where no recovery whatsoever is allowed
-∆ must prove breach of duty and causation using the same standards as π (hand formula, reasonable person, proximate cause, etc.)

Question 28

Last Clear Chance Doctrine

Answer 28

Contributory negligence of the party injured will not defeat the action if it is shown that the defendant might by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence have avoided the consequences of the injured party’s negligence.

Question 29

Assumption of Risk

Answer 29

ˆhas not breached duty of care but rather the plaintiff has knowingly and consensually encountered a risk. See Lampson & Murphy v. Steeplechase Amusement

Question 30

Secondary Assumption of Risk

Answer 30

Even though the ∆ has breached a duty of care, the π assumes the risk when he recognizes and perceives the danger yet proceeds in the name of the risk. (meistrich)

Question 31

Contractual Obligation

Answer 31

Where two parties dispute the existence of an arbitration agreement, and one party did not explain the contract to the wronged party, the agreement is not binding.

Question 32

Comparative Negligence

Answer 32

Replaces contributory negligence which is all or nothing mentality. (Liv v. Yellow Cab)

Should not be used to cut cause of ation but only to reduce amount of damages available.

Two forms:

1. Damages are apportioned based on liability. Liability apportioned exactly consistent with fault
2. Up to a point . You shouldn’t be allowed to bring a suit if you are more responsible

Question 33

Effects of Comparative Negligence on Last Clear Chance and Assumption of Risk

Answer 33

1. Last clear chance no longer exists- wanton conduct of defendant relieves plaintiff of any liability
2. Primary assumption of risk continues to exist

Question 34

Modified Comparative Negligence

Answer 34

Plaintiff will not recover if they’re found to be either equally responsible or more responsible for the resulting injury. In other words, in order to recover damages, the plaintiff must not be more than 50% at fault for the resulting injury.

Question 35

Four standards of Causation

Answer 35

1) . Natural and probable
- Wagner
- Ryan
2) . Foreseeable
- Palsgraf
- Hines v. Garrett
- Georgia Price
- Brower- accident with train. Guards on board train to protect against theft.
3) . Substantial Factor
- Gonzalez
4) . Direct
- Polemis
- Counter with Wagon Bound