Cause in Fact

Question 1

a. New York Central RR v. Grimstad

Answer 1

i. Facts
1) P decedent knocked overboard barge (he was the captain) when a tug entering the slip between the two piers bumped the barge; P felt shock of bump and found husband in the water 10 ft from the barge. P attempted to throw him a line but it was too late. P sues the D for NEG in not equipping the barge with adequate life preservers
ii. Issues
1) Did the D failure to equip barge with adequate life preservers cause the P’s husbands death?
iii. Holding
1) No, Proximate cause of his death was falling in the water, but the jury left to pure conjecture and speculation as to whether a life buoy would have saved his life
2) Nothing shows the decedent did not drown because he did not know how to swim
iv. Notes
1) Juries cannot engage in “but for speculation” therefore their instruction is to find whether the buoy WOULD HAVE SAVED. 100% likely that it happened
2) This is a horrendous decision, it should be more about whether or not

Question 2

c. Kirincich v. Standard Dredging Co.

Answer 2

i. Facts
1) Decedent fell off dredge close to the shore, his friends were unable to save him. Very view life saving devices around
ii. Holding
1) Remanded for trial because the P might have been saved if his friends had adequate life saving devices
2) Hand statement
a) Cannot insist upon certainty when certainty is impossible
iii. Notes
1) Contrast “Might” with “Would” what the hell is the difference?
a) The jury should not have asked “would the person be saved” but rather “might the person be saved”
i) What is the P’s burden?
A. To show that it was 51% likely that a life buoy would have saved her husband. (more likely than not)
b) Jury instruction should have been: jury is it more likely than not that had you had the buoy you might have been saved?
If that is the case, find for the P.