Causation of Harm Flashcards
1
Q
Causation of Harm - General Concept
A
In order for someone to be liable, their act must be the:
1) Actual cause (“but for”) AND
2) legal (proximate cause) of the harm
- in evaluating these, you need to look at actual cause first (if no actual cause, def wins) - need to prove first that the harm if a result of def’s negligence, + then ask whether causation tight enough
2
Q
Actual Cause
A
- “but for” test - but for def’s negligence, would plaintiffs’ harm have occurred?
- notion of causal chain as a wedge, containing more possible causes of accident the further back one looks
- requires counterfactual inquiry -> need to ask what would’ve happened if the actor hadn’t engaged in tortious conduct
3
Q
Barnes v. Bovenmeyer
A
- 1963
- case where pl loses eye after steel entered it -> argues could’ve saved the eye if dr had removed the steel sooner
- BUT pl ultimately loses b/c expert witness says removing steel sooner likely would not have saved the eye -> ie. dr’s actions not really the but-for cause of the harm
4
Q
Scafidi v. Seiler - Facts
A
- 1990
- deals w/ enhanced risk inquiry - Scafidi had pre-existing condition that might’ve contributed to premature birth + death of her child, but dr’s failure to treat early labor might’ve increased the risk
5
Q
Scafidi v. Seller - Increased Risk Standard
A
- applies to instances of causation w/ allegations that def’s negligence exacerbated pl’s existing illness
- means jury must consider whether def’s negligence increased the risk of harm + whether such increased risk was a substantial factor in producing the harm
6
Q
Scafidi - Lost Chance Damages
A
- pl’s damages are limited based on % chance of having avoided the harm w/o the negligence (damages are calculated according to whatever percentage of the chance you miss out on)
7
Q
Tax Harm vs. Tax Risk
A
- tax harm = backward-looking approach - waits for harm to occur, then imposes full cost of loss on the actor
- tax-risk = future-oriented - even if you don’t cause the harm, you pay if you’re negligent (would pay PxL instead of full L)
8
Q
Why is tax-risk not widely embraced?
A
- compensation (where does the fine go if no one harmed?)
- private attorneys general (who brings the lawsuit?)
- overhead costs
- note that insurance performs function of changing tax-harm to tax-risk though
9
Q
Multiple Causation
A
- if there is a single harm w/ multiple causes, you run the actual cause analysis for both acts -> if both defs’ negligence caused the harm, the defs are jointly + severally liable
10
Q
Joint + Several Liability
A
- every def contributing to the same harm is liable to the victim for the whole amount of reasonable damages
11
Q
Proportionate Liability
A
- each def contributing to the same harm is liable to the victim only in proportion to his/her tortious responsibility for victim’s injury
12
Q
Contribution
A
- works with joint and several liability
- right that exists among joint and severally liable defs upon some indivisible claim for same injury, death, or harm whether or not judgment recovered against all or any of them
- note that this does NOT apply where the parties cause separate harms or if the harm is found to be divisible
13
Q
Indemnity
A
- may exist among liable parties
- traditionally, shifted entire loss from one party to another + was appropriate when one party had primary or greater liability/duty requiring to bear whole of burden as between parties
14
Q
Johnson v. Chapman
A
- 1897
- illustrates old rule of joint and several liability
- two defs, each owned warehouse to north of pl + party wall between them inadequate (both failed to repair it) -> their warehouses fell + caused damage to pl’s -> both defs jointly + severally liable
15
Q
Pro Rata Damages
A
- under Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, pro rata damages -> damages split equally among the joint and severally liable parties
- avoids q of comparative fault/proportion of fault inquiry -> lower transaction costs but not attentive to degrees of fault
