Causation/Damages

Question 1

Cause is actually broken down into two separate concepts:

Answer 1

1) Factual Cause and 2) Proximate Cause.

Question 2

In order of analysis, what should always be analyzed first?

Answer 2

Factual Cause should always be analyzed before Proximate Cause.

Question 3

Factual Cause is the point in the trial where

Answer 3

the plaintiff shows the connection between the defendant’s breach of duty and the injury caused by the breach.

Question 4

Linguistically, a defendant is not a factual cause, a ______ is.

Answer 4

BREACH. E.g.: The defendant was not the cause of the accident, it was the defendant’s breach of duty in the form of consuming 8 martinis and driving.

Question 5

Linguistically, is it referred to as “a” cause or “the” cause?

Answer 5

It is “a” cause. One can never truly determine what “the” cause is, as there an infinite number.

Question 6

Substantive Test of Cause, the “But For” Test, requires plaintiff showing

Answer 6

that “but for” the defendant’s breach, the Plaintiff would be healthy/happy today.

Question 7

The “But For” test is also described/argued as

Answer 7

the parallel universe theory, using a hypothetical alternate reality in which defendant’s breach of duty didn’t occur in an effort to prove causal link between breach of duty and plaintiff’s injury.

Question 8

The Merged Cause Cases exist when

Answer 8

two negligent defendants commit separate breaches, which operate independently at first and then, in concert, and unleash a destructive force on the world that hurts the plaintiff.

Question 9

The Merged Cause Case is solved by using the

Answer 9

Substantial Factor Test.

Question 10

The Substantial Factor Test looks to whether

Answer 10

a breach in its own right is a substantial factor of harm. Usually determined to be a substantial factor if the breach could have independently caused the ultimate harm to the defendant.

Question 11

If, in a Merged Cause Case, both defendant’s breaches are considered Substantial Factors then,

Answer 11

liability is held jointly by the defendants.

Question 12

A case of Unascertainable Causes exists when

Answer 12

there are two negligent defendants, and it is impossible to determine which one is at fault, or more at fault.

Question 13

The solution to the case of Unascertainable Causes is to

Answer 13

shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff to the defendants, who must both attempt to convince the jury that they are not responsible for a breach of duty.

Question 14

If both defendants are found to have breached a duty, or neither can convince otherwise,

Answer 14

both defendants will be jointly liable.

Question 15

The Doctrine of Proximate Cause is more aptly understood as a

Answer 15

Fairness Doctrine.

Question 16

Proximate Cause is the point in the case where the Plaintiff must convince the court that

Answer 16

liability would be fair. Generally this is an “avoidance of absurd results” reality check before damages are awarded.

Question 17

The central concept of Proximate Cause is Foreseeability, which is governed by three factors:

Answer 17

1) Time;
2) Space;
3) Weirdness/Absurdness

Question 18

Four tricky cases of foreseeable injury in which the original defendant IS held liable:

Answer 18

1) Cases Involving Intervening Medical Negligence;
2) Cases Involving Intervening Negligent Rescue;
3) Cases Involving Intervening Reaction Force;
4) Cases Involving Subsequent Disease or Accident

Question 19

Regarding Damages, the Eggshell-Skull Doctrine provides

Answer 19

the defendant is liable for ALL harm suffered by the plaintiff, even if surprisingly great in scope. Recovery is plaintiff-subjective, not objectively determined.

Question 20

The Eggshell-Skull doctrine applies to cases of

Answer 20

EVERYTHING. The doctrine applies to every tort on the exam.