Negligence - Causation Flashcards
Actual Cause
Also causation in fact. WAS THE CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT A FACTUAL, ACTUAL, PHYSICAL CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S HARM?
Actual Cause - “but for” test
If the plaintiff would not have been damaged “but for” the defendant’s act, that act is a cause in fact of the injury
Actual cause - “substantial factor” test
If plaintiff sustains damage as the result of the negligent conduct of two or more tortfeasors, and it appears that the conduct of either one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both are liable if each of their acts was a “substantial factor” in causing the injury
Actual cause - concurrent causes
Separate acts of negligence of defendant and third party cause a single injury and plaintiff would not have been injured but for the concurrence. In this situation both the defendant and the third party are actual causes
Actual cause - which party caused the harm?
The better view is to shift the burden to the defendants or apply the market share approach
Proximate Cause
WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S LIABILITY SHOULD BE CUT OFF EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT WAS BOTH NEGLIGENT AND A FACTUAL CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S INJURY.
Proximate cause - direct cause
No Intervening Forces or Agency Operating Between Defendant’s Negligent Act and the Occurrence of the Harm to the Plaintiff
Proximate cause - direct cause: foreseeable results
Defendant acts on a set stage and all factors contributing to plaintiff’s injury or damage are in place as the defendant acts and the result which occurs is foreseeable with no new forces entering the picture. Exception to liability may be based on policy grounds or if the injury or occurs in a bizarre fashion.
Proximate cause - direct cause: unforeseeable results
A foreseeable plaintiff has been injured but an unexpected or different injury occurs.
a. Thin skulled/egg shell plaintiff. All courts hold defendant liable for the full extent of the injury – defendant takes the victim as he finds him (Bartolene v. Jeckovich).
b. Other cases where one type of injury is foreseeable but an entirely different injury occurs. Courts are split:
(1) Polemis – Minority - hold defendant liable for all direct consequences.
(2) Wagon Mound #1 Majority – hold defendant liable for only foreseeable consequences.
(3) Wagon Mound #2 – Balancing test weighing risk against the difficulty of curing it.
Proximate cause - direct cause: unforeseeable plaintiff
If a reasonable and prudent person would not have foreseen the possibility of injury or damage to anyone both Andrews and Cardozo agree that a duty is not owed to anyone.
a. If injury was foreseeable (Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.; Yun v. Ford Motor Company)
(1) Cardozo – zone of danger.
(2) Andrews – duty to one duty to all. But you must consider the Andrews factors in his Palsgraf dissent:
(a) Directness of connection between the act and harm.
(b) Natural and continuous sequence between the act and the harm.
(c) Whether the harm could have been reasonably foreseen.
(d) Remoteness in time and space.
Proximate cause - indirect cause
Intervening forces are present. Issue Is Whether the Intervening Force (Act of God, Act of Man, Act of Animal) Extends the Result of the Negligence of Defendant #1 or Whether the Intervening Force Severs and Interrupts the Negligence of Defendant #1
Proximate cause - indirect cause: foreseeable results with dependent foreseeable intervening forces
Forces that come into play only because of the negligent act of the defendant. The intervening force arises because of defendant’s negligence and is foreseeable, i.e., a normal response to the situation created by defendant’s negligent act (escape, rescue, medical treatment). The liability of the first negligent actor is not cut off. If the response is highly unusual it will not be found to be a dependent intervening force.
Proximate cause - indirect cause: foreseeable results with independent foreseeable intervening forces
The intervening force comes into play but is not in response to the negligence of defendant #1. If intervening act is foreseeable, the liability of the first defendant is not cut off even if the intervening act is criminal
Proximate cause - indirect cause: foreseeable results with unforeseeable intervening forces
The conduct of defendant #1 threatens a result of a particular kind and an intervening force which could not have been anticipated produces the same result (Watson v. Kentucky & Indiana Bridge and R.R. Co). The intervening act usually will not excuse defendant #1 of liability but if the intervention is criminal or tortuous, defendant’s liability may turn on the culpability of the intervener.
Proximate cause - indirect cause: unforeseeable results with foreseeable intervening forces
Broad view – the first defendant is liable; narrow view, first defendant escapes liability - restaurant serves bad food, patron vomits and plaintiff slips and falls due to vomit
