Causation in Fact Flashcards
Majority rule
2nd: Res ispa loquitur- the defendant has to prove enough to rebut the allegations.
3rd approach:
Causation in fact
examines whether the defendant’s negligent conduct caused the plaintiff’s injury.
But for the defendant’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred, and then the causation in fact is satisfied.
Causation in fact should go to the jury if a reasonable jury can find it probable that but for the defendant’s breach, no injury to the plaintiff would have occurred. True or false?
True, probable means that it is more likely than not.
Medical misdiagnosis
If the D misdiagnoses the P’s condition. And if this hurt the P’s chance of surviving the condition that was ALREADY deadly. The misdiagnosis can not be a but for a claim of negligence.
substantial factor (smith case for number 2)
1) if a jury finds the misdiagnosis to be a substantial factor, the plaintiff recovers the whole amount of damages
2) The loss of chance approach: if the jury determines that the misdiagnosis caused a 20% increase in death, then the defendant should compensate the plaintiff 20 percent of the value of death.
Frye test
Daubert test
1) whether the expert’s testimony is good scientific evidence based on the scientific method.
- has it been subjected to peer review and publication to show there is something objective that points to the testimony that the testimony is good science?
2) Is it actually beneficial in establishing causation in fact?
- a possibility of causation is not enough to prove causation. Instead, a jury needs to find it probable that the injury would not have happened had the defendant not breached their duty.
- A plaintiff has to show the actions of the defendant probably resulted in the injury
-The judge has to be the gatekeeper of bad expert testimony. They have to create requirements that help filter through the requirements.
Hill cause rule
Multiple Insufficient/Necessary Causes
Both are but for causes
Anderson’s cause in fact rule
Multiple sufficient causes
- neither is a but-for cause
Causation rule: Was the plaintiff’s conduct a substantial factor in bringing harm to the plaintiff (there is no test for substantial factor test. The test uses jural instincts.)
- courts will use the substantial factor test to allow the jury to decide that multiple defendants are liable.
What do we do when there is only one cause in fact but we can’t figure out which of two options is the proximate cause?
Shift the burden of proof on the issue of causation to the defendants. This will help solve the issue. If this fails, both defendants can be liable to the defendant. Under the circumstances of two defendants both being negligent and the plaintiff does not know who did it, the court thinks it is fair to take the burden of proof away from the plaintiff.
Sindell questions: What do you do when there are multiple defendants in an industry but the faulty product can not be identified in association with one of the companies?
Liability is based on the likelihood of injury via market share.
Illustration: 1,000,000 in damages and four defendants are brought to court. Each is liable to their market share, 20%.
$200,0000 each if they are only liable for their own market share.
$250,000 each if they are liable for the entirety of the damages.
Causation has two parts:
Causation has two parts:
First prove Actual causation
and
Second, prove Proximate causation
Purpose of proximate cause:
Limiting the scope of liability for one’s negligent acts based on fairness and public policy
No court would conclude that A is a proximate cause of C’s injury when A is only the parent of B and B injured A.
