Negligence: Causation (Ch. 6)

Question 1

“But/For” Test

Answer 1

” Sine qua non”

If the plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence, the D will be deemed the actual cause of the P injuries.

Question 2

Lost Chance of Recovery Test

Medical Malpractice

Answer 2

if P had been properly diagnosed then she would have had a better chance of recovery. The But/for test doesn’t work here, that’s why this theory was developed.

Question 3

List 3 tests for ACTUAL CAUSE

Causation in Fact

Answer 3

“But/For” Test
Substantial Factor Test
Lost Chance of Recovery Test (Medical Malpractice)

Question 4

Superseding Cause

Answer 4

Act that contributes to the plaintiff’s injuries to the extent that the defendant is relieved of liability.

ex: lightning / “Act of God”. D not held liable for an “act of God”.
ex: Tavern owner trying to blame the other bars that P went to cannot say that those other bars that served P with beer are Superseding causes, they are Intervening causes.

Question 5

Actual Cause

Answer 5

Cause in fact of the plaintiff’s injuries

Question 6

Custodian of the Records

Answer 6

The person in an organization who knows about its filing system and records

Question 7

Intervening Cause

Answer 7

Act that contributes to the plaintiff’s injuries but does not relieve the defendant of liability

Question 8

Proximate Cause

Answer 8

Legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; emphasis is on the concept of foreseeability

Palsgraf case

• Foreseeability
• Exceptions:
  
  • Egg Shell Skull – take your victim as you find him.
  • Unusual Manner
  • Member of a foreseeable class

Question 9

Substantial Factor Test

Answer 9

Two or more concurrent or successive events combine to cause the P’s injury and each of them is a substantial factor in producing the injury.