Chapter 5; Causation; Sine Qua Non + Proof

Question 1

Sine Qua Non

Answer 1

“without which not” “but for” “necessary condition”

Question 2

Perkins v. Texas & NO RR [general rule]

Answer 2

The ∆’s negligence is a CIF of the π’s damages if the π establishes that those damages would not have happened, but for the ∆’s negligence

Question 3

General Rule (Perkins modified)

Answer 3

CIF if π establishes that those damages would not have happened, but for the ∆’s negligence

Question 4

Reynolds v. Texas (slay-olds stairs)

Answer 4

If the facts show that the negligence created the foreseeable risk of accident then CIF can be established

Question 5

Gentry v. Douglas (loose foot stumble shot)

Answer 5

Causation requires proof of proximate and cause in fact for liability

Question 6

Kramer (glass face) v. Wilkins

Answer 6

link between negligence and injury beyond lay, need expert testimony for link

Question 7

Hesrkovits (slim-shits) v. Group Health

Answer 7

∆ is liable for reduce chance of survival

Question 8

Daubert v. Merrell Dow (no Trump Facts)

Answer 8

Scientific evidence has to be expressly scientifically viable

Question 9

Hill v. Edmond (dark night)

Answer 9

two separate acts of negligence produce one damage, each is wholly responsible

Question 10

Anderson v. Minneapolis (2 flames)

Answer 10

liable if “substantial factor” or “material element”

Question 11

Summer v. Tice (2 rifles 1 wound)

Answer 11

∆ has burden to absolve when one of possible cause

Question 12

Sindell (SDE) v. Abbott

Answer 12

In certain circumstances, where π can’t id torter, group that caused overall harm can be held liable (market-share liability)