Negligence-Causation

Question 1

What is required to prove causation?

Answer 1

must prove both factual and proximate cause
factual causation: P’s obligation to establish link between breach and ultimate injury
proximate cause: foreseeability

refer to factual cause as A factual cause, not THE

Question 2

Standards for factual causation?

Answer 2

But-for test: P must persuade jury that but-for breach, he would be healthy and uninjured today

Multiple Ds and merged causes: test is substantial factor test: D’s conduct is cause in fact if it was a substantial factor in causing the injury

Unascertainable cause cases: causation is unascertainable and traditional assignment of proof seems to leave P without any remedy: burden shifts to Ds to prove they weren’t responsible. If neither D can prove their innocence, both are jointly liable

Question 3

Standard for proximate cause?

Answer 3

foreseeability test: liable for all foreseeable harmful results

direct cause cases: D’s breach causes immediate harm; usually liability because consequences are foreseeable

indirect cause cases: D commits breach, other things happen, then injury to P.
In indirect cause cases, like to test on the following, where D is held liable in all 4:
-intervening medical negligence (original Dr. still liable)
-intervening negligent rescue
-protection or reaction forces
-subsequent disease or accident

Question 4

What is eggshell skull principle?

Answer 4

P recovers all damages even if injuries are surprisingly great in scope once P has proven all elements

IN NY: a P’s recovery is normally reduced by any amounts that have been received from other sources (such as health insurance or disability payments)