Negligence - CAUSATION

Question 1

What are the two types of causation P must show?

Answer 1

1. Causation in fact

2. Legal/Proximate causation

Question 2

Is D ever the factual cause of the injury?

Answer 2

No - the BREACH is a cause of the injury, not the defendant.

Question 3

Define the but-for test.

Answer 3

But for the breach, P would not have been injured.

Question 4

How can P prove causation in a case of multiple defendants with merged causes? (e.g. fails but-for test)

Answer 4

This is the merging fires example. The destructive forces operate separately, but then combine to cause the injury.

Use the SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST:
P must show that D’s conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm, that it could have caused the harm all by itself.

Question 5

How can P prove causation in the case of multiple defendants, one of who caused the injury, but it’s impossible to tell which one (unascertainable cause case)?

Answer 5

The burden of proving causation SHIFTS to the defendants, each to prove they were not the but-for cause.

Question 6

What is the underlying policy of proximate causation?

Answer 6

Is it fair to hold D liable? Looking for the foreseeable consequences of P’s carelessness. D won’t be liable for freakish or bizarre consequences of his actions.

Question 7

What is the well settled quartet (cases where D indirectly caused P’s injuries but will be held liable nonetheless)?

Answer 7

1. Intervening medical negligence/malpractice
   (the doctor will also be liable)
2. Intervening negligent rescue
3. Intervening protection or reaction forces
4. Subsequent disease or accident