Causation (Negligence) Flashcards
what must the plaintiff show to prove causation?
plaintiff must show the defendant’s conduct was both the:
1) factual cause, and
2) proximate cause
of their injury
what does “factual” cause mean?
refers to the link between the breach and the harm
what is the “but for” test for factual causation and when does it apply?
an act or omission is a factual cause of an injury when the injury would not have occurred “but for” the act or omission
**NOTE = test applies where several acts (each insufficient on their own) combine to cause the injury
how can “but for” cause be refuted?
by showing that the plaintiff still would have been injured even if the defendant’s act/omission did not occur
what is the “substantial factor” test for factual causation and when does it apply?
the defendant’s conduct is the cause in fact if it was a substantial factor in causing the injury
**NOTE = applies when several causes bring about an injury and any one ALONE could have been sufficient to cause the injury but they are now indivisible from each other (aka – merged causes)
when does the unascertainable causes approach apply and what is the consequence?
applies when there are two negligent acts, only one of which causes injury, but it is not known which one actually caused it
**consequence = burden of proof now SHIFTS to defendants (each must show that his negligence is NOT the actual cause)
what is proximate causation?
a doctrine that limits liability for unforeseeable or unusual consequences even where the conduct actually caused the injury
when is a defendant’s act deemed a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury?
when the injury is a normal incident of and within the increased risk caused by their negligent acts
TLDR = when injury is foreseeable result of their negligence
when will defendants still be considered the proximate cause despite intervening forces? (2 options)
when their negligence either:
1) caused a foreseeable reaction from an intervening force OR
2) created a foreseeable risk that an intervening force would harm the plaintiff
what intervening forces created/caused by the defendant’s negligent act will always be considered foreseeable? (4)
1) medical malpractice
2) negligence of rescuers
3) protection or reaction forces to the defendant’s conduct (includes efforts to protect persons/property)
4) disease or accident substantially caused by the original injury
when will intervening forces that are NOT just a natural response to defendant’s negligence nonetheless be foreseeable?
will nonetheless be foreseeable if the defendant’s negligence increased the risk of harm from these forces
**3 TYPES = (1) negligent acts of third parties, (2) crimes and intentional torts of third parties, (3) acts of God
what are superseding forces?
intervening forces that produce unforeseeable results (not within increased risk created by defendant) and thereby break the causal connection between the plaintiff’s injury and defendant’s initial act
