Negligence Causation Flashcards
What are the types of cause in fact?
but-for causation
and, exceptions to but-for causation: alternative causes, substantial factors, concurrent causes
What is but-for causation?
the harm would not have occurred absent the defendant’s negligent conduct
What are concurrent causes?
(1) multiple forces or acts combined to cause an injury
(2) none of the forces standing alone would have been sufficient enough to cause the injury
What are alternative causes?
where two or more agents are negligent to a third who is injured thereby, both of those negligent are liable for the injury although one of them could have caused it (two people are negligent but we don’t know which one)
What are substantial factors?
(1) where multiple forces or acts combined to cause an injury
(2) each of the multiple forces would have been sufficient to cause the harm
What is the loss of chance theory?
What are the elements?
claim for loss of chance as a result of doctor’s negligence (40% chance of survival becomes 10% chance of survival - plaintiff can recover for 30% lost chance)
(1) plaintiff must establish they lost a substantial chance of a better medical outcome due to defendant’s negligence
(2) plaintiff must plead with specificity (percentage and quality) and must include scientific/expert witness
(3) plaintiff must suffer physical harm they might have avoided had they received proper care
What is the Daubert test?
for expert testimony and scientific cases
(1) reflect scientific knowledge, supported by a scientific method, good science (aka accepted by scientific community)
(2) must be relevant to case/issue at hand
What is the Palsgraff majority/Cardozo view of proximate cause?
liability only in the zone of reasonably foreseeable harm resulting from defendant’s actions
owe duty to only plaintiffs who are reasonably foreseeable
What is the Palsgraff dissent/Andrews view of proximate cause?
liability for negligence as long as there is a natural and continuous sequence between cause and effect
owe duty of care to everyone in the world and only a superseding cause will cut off liability
(butterfly effect basically)
What is a superseding cause?
something that breaks the foreseeable sequence of consequences, such that proximate cause can no longer be satisfied, cutting off liability
What are some examples of superseding causes?
crime (exceptions)
acts of god (unless the force of nature should be reasonably anticipated)
suicide (not if irresistible impulse - only superseding if there is a note left or if it was planned out)
When is crime NOT a superseding cause?
(1) defendant has a duty of care toward plaintiff (teachers, landlord)
(2) defendant destroys/undermines some protection plaintiff has (defendant unlocks door to apartment building)
(3) defendant brings dangerous person into association (security guard with criminal record)
(4) defendant has custody of perp
What to consider when determining foreseeability?
(1) when a reasonable person would take action to avoid harm
(2) if a reasonable person would anticipate risk, then defendant liable
(3) defendant liable for consequences that are foreseeable at the time of negligent conduct
(4) what risk is created and how much burden to eliminate
(5) how easy it is to avoid risk
What is the eggshell skull doctrine?
defendant takes the plaintiff as they find them and is liable for unforeseen extent of consequences caused by an intentional tort or negligent act
(only applies to prox cause issues)
What is the rescuer doctrine?
allows an injured rescuer to sue the party which caused the danger requiring rescue in the first place
elements needed to achieve rescuer status:
(1) defendant was negligent to the person rescued and such negligence caused peril or appearance of peril to person rescued
(2) peril or appearance of peril was imminent
(3) a reasonably prudent person would have concluded such peril or appearance of peril existed
(4) the rescuer acted with reasonable care in effectuating the rescue
