Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Torts > Factual Causation > Flashcards

Factual Causation Flashcards

1
Q

D breach of duty must ..

A

Cause P harm in relevant senses

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Possible to breach a duty and ..

A

Owe someone nothing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Le Roy Fibre McKenna majority holding

A

Not CN because P using land how he wanted and didn’t interfere with railroad right to use land

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

McKenna says the ..

A

Rights of one man in the use of his property cannot be limited by the wrong of another

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Critique of McKenna

A

Oversimplifying causation, no Q about P actions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

LeRoy Fibre Holmes Concurrence

A

Right to put flax on land but liability for railroad conditioned on if stacks reasonably far away from railroad

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Holmes concurrence is more..

A

In line with modern negligence, unearths complexity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Alcholism doctor Hypo

A

But for Causation- If D disclosed (X) then no paralysis (Y).
Proximate Cause- Alcoholism not reason for paralysis so no legal cause

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

You need both … to establish prima facie case for negligence

A

Factual and Proximate Causation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

But for Causation defined

A

When harm wouldn’t have occurred absent the conduct

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Counterfactual causation

A

If no X, then no Y so X caused Y

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Dominant rules for Factual Causation

A

Counterfactual, Probabilistic, Increased Risk, Lost Chance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Grimstad is a about..

A

Counterfactual Analysis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Grimstad holding

A

D not liable as matter of law,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Grimstad reasoning

A

Nothing to show P didn’t drown because couldn’t swim, if life buoy would’ve gotten in time, known how to throw correctly etc. if life buoy no crowing must be more probable than not

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How would P vs D lawyer handle Grimstad

A

P simplify causal chain, D complicate it

17
Q

More probable than not for negligence means

A

More probable than not D negligence caused P harm

18
Q

RST But for approach

A

What would have occurred if actor not negligent

19
Q

Driver falls asleep at wheel and crashes in house. But for causation?

A

Easy yes, if not fallen asleep wouldn’t have crashed

20
Q

Harder rst cases for but for causation include…

A

Tortious conduct marginally more risky than allowed OR failed to taken precautions to reduce risk but risk still would’ve been there

21
Q

Stubbs is about..

A

Probabilistic Analysis

22
Q

Stubbs holding

A

Not essential for P to eliminate all other possible causes, just must produce evidence that jury can conclude with reasonable certainty D negligence the cause

23
Q

Zuchowicz is about ..

A

Increased risk

24
Q

Zuchowicz rule

A

If D conduct negligent because increased risk and that very risk materialized, factfinder can infer negligence caused harm

25
Q

Zuchowicz reasoning

A

FDA not statute but gives max dose because higher dose increases side effects so harm of drug outweighs the expected benefit

26
Q

In Zuchowicz case, burden shifts to D to prove..

A

Wrongful conduct not substantial factor in the outcome

27
Q

Zuchowicz holding

A

When negative side effect result of drug + wrongly prescribed dose fact finder can conclude substantial factor

28
Q

Zuchowicz lets jury …

A

Decide but not required to find causation. (If no inference, done as matter of law)

29
Q

Zuchowicz reasoning most effective when.l

A

Dosage significantly in excess (200%) less so when overdose is small because at that point harder to see overdose as cause rather than just the medication itself

30
Q

P falls down apartment at night. Landlord lighting poor (statute requires them to provide well lit stairways) When can infer negligence?

A

Nighttime fall if no light, maybe if 10 watts. If 40 watt when required 50 far less likely

31
Q

Pool with no lifeguard someone drowns. Can infer causation?

A

Yes but for cause even if risk of drowning still there when lifeguards present

32
Q

Herskovits is about..

A

Lost chance analysis

33
Q

Herskovitz facts

A

P less than 50% survival at all times, early detection 39%, late detection dropped to 26%

34
Q

Traditional Jdx Lost chance rule

A

If less than 50% chance survival prior to D negligence, cannot recover

35
Q

Traditional Jdx Lost chance policy

A

More fair to D, negligence didn’t cause the harm of death

36
Q

Herskovits Jdx lost chance rule

A

P need only prove that D negligence caused significant reduction in chance of avoiding harm

37
Q

Herskovits Jdx lost chance policy

A

More fair to P, who can’t prove D negligence caused harm even if it did, incentivizes D to give non negligent care

38
Q

Matsuyama Jdx lost chance rule

A

Harm not wrongful death but the increased risk so compensate for that

39
Q

Lost chance is an …

A

Unsettled doctrine related to medical malpractice

Torts (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions