Torts 3--Causation Flashcards
What must a defendant’s conduct be confirmed as before it can be considered a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury?
A defendant’s conduct must be a cause in fact of an injury (as determined by a variety of tests) before the conduct can be considered as the proximate cause of such injury.
Torts>Causation>Actual Cause
What is the cause in fact in a torts case?
The cause in fact is also known in plain language as the actual cause of the injury.
Torts>Causation>Actual Cause
How is causation analyzed under the “but for” test?
The “but for” test determines actual causation by examining whether the injury would have occurred absent (or, “but for”) the behavior at issue.
Torts>Causation>Actual Cause>”But For” Test
How does the “But For” test apply to injurious situations with multiple concurrent causes?
In a case with multiple concurrent causes where the acts jointly caused the injury, but no injury would have occurred had any of the concurrent causes not occurred, each independent cause is considered an actual cause of the injury under the “But For” test.
Torts>Causation>Actual Cause>”But For” Test>Concurrent Causes
Under certain circumstances, the “but for” test is inadequate to determine causation in fact. When this occurs, what are the other two tests the courts must rely on?
1) Joint Causes - Substantial Factor Test
2) Alternative Causes Approach
Torts>Causation>Actual Cause>Additional Tests
”
When is it sufficient to determine a defendant’s conduct was a “substantial factor” in causing an injury?
Where several causes commingle and bring about an injury—and any one alone would have been sufficient to cause the injury—it is sufficient if defendant’s conduct was a ““substantial factor”” in causing the injury
Torts>Causation>Actual Cause>Additional Tests>Joint Causes—Substantial Factor Test
”
Under the alternative causes approach, who does the burden shift to?
The burden of proof shifts to the defendants
Does the “alternative causes” approach apply in Enterprise Liability Cases?
Yes. This concept has been extended in some cases to encompass industry groups
Torts>Causation>Actual Cause>Additional Tests>Alternative Causes Approach
”
When does the burden of proof shift to defendants?
A problem of causation exists where two or more persons have been negligent, but uncertainty exists as to which one caused plaintiff’s injury.
Under the alternative causes approach, plaintiff must prove that harm has been caused to him by one of them (with uncertainty as to which one).
The burden of proof then shifts to defendants, and each must show that his negligence not the actual cause.
Causation>Actual Cause>Additional Tests>Burden of Proof Shifts to Defendants
How is causation applied in Enterprise Liability Cases?
This concept has been extended in some cases to encompass industry groups
EXAMPLE: Daughters of women who took the anti-miscarriage drug “DES” contracted cancer as a result of the drug manufacturer’s negligence. However, because the cancer appeared many years after the DES was ingested, it was usually impossible to determine which manufacturer of DES had supplied the drug taken by any particular plaintiff. Several courts have required all producers of DES unable to prove their noninvolvement to pay in proportion to their percentage of the market share.
Causation>Actual Cause>Additional Tests>Applied in Enterprise Liability Cases
What is proximate cause?
Proximate Cause also known as Legal Causation
In addition to being a cause in fact, the defendant’s conduct must also be a proximate cause of the injury.
Not all injuries “actually” caused by defendant will be deemed to have been proximately caused by his acts. Thus, doctrine of proximate causation is a limitation of liability and deals with liability or nonliability for unforeseeable or unusual consequences of one’s acts
Torts>Proximate Cause
What is the liability for proximate cause?
The defendant is liable for all harmful results
that are the normal incidents of and within the increased risk caused by his acts. This test is based on foreseeability.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)>General Rule of Liability
What is a direct cause for proximate cause?
A direct cause case is one where the facts present an uninterrupted chain of events
from the time of the defendant’s negligent act to the time of plaintiff’s injury.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)>General Rule of Liability>Direct Cause Cases
Is a defendant liable even if plaintiff was injured in an unusual manner and the harmful result was foreseeable?
Yes. If a particular harmful result was at all foreseeable from defendant’s negligent conduct, the unusual timing of cause and effect is irrelevant to defendant’s liability.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)>General Rule of Liability>Direct Cause Cases>Foreseeable Harmful Results–Defendant Liable
Unforeseeable Harmful Results
Most courts hold tat a defendant is NOT liable for harm where the defendant’s negligent conduct created a risk of harmful result but an entirely different and totally unforeseeable type of harmful result occurs
Ex: Driver is driving too fast on a busy highway threatning his passenger with injury, without warning the highway collapses because of deteriorated support beams. Passenger is seriously injured. Although driver’s neligent conduct was an actual cause of injury to passenger, courts would not hold driver liable for passenger’s injury.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Direct Cause>Unforeseeable Harmful Results -Defendant Not Liable
Indirect Cause
An Indirect cuase is one where the facts indicate that a force came into motion AFTER the time of defendant’s negligent act and combined with the negligent act to cause injury to plaintiff.
+intervening forces are present
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause
Standard for Determining Indirect Cause
Whether an intervening force will cut off defendant’s liability for plaintiff’s injury is determined by FORESEEABILITY.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause
Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces
Defendant is LIABLE where defendant’s negligence cause a foreseeable harmful response or reaction from an intervening force or created a foreseeable risk that an intervening force would harm plaintiff.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause > Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces - Defendant Liable
Definition of Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces?
Normal responses or reactions to the situation created by defendant’s negligent act
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation>Indirect Cause Cases>Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces
Is a tortfeasor liable for Subsequent Medical Malpractice?
Yes, the original tortfeasor is usually liable for the aggravation of plaintiff’s
condition caused by the malpractice of plaintiff’s treating physician.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation>Indirect Cause Cases>Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces>Subsequent Medical Malpractice
Is a tortfeasor liable for Negligence of Rescuers?
Yes. Generally, rescuers are viewed as foreseeable intervening forces, and so
the original tortfeasor usually is liable for their negligence.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation>Indirect Cause Cases>Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces>Negligence of Rescuers
Is a defendant liable for Efforts to Protect Person or Property?
Yes, a defendant usually is liable for negligent efforts on the part of persons
to protect life or property of themselves or third persons endangered by
defendant’s negligence.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation>Indirect Cause Cases>Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces>Efforts to Protect Person or Property
When does liability attach to a defendant for any harm inflicted from “reaction” forces?
Where defendant’s actions cause another to “react” (e.g., negligently firing a gun at another’s feet), liability generally attaches for any harm inflicted by the “reacting” person on another
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause Cases>Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces-Defendant Liable>Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces>”Reaction” Forces
When does liability attach for subsequent disease?
The original tortfeasor usually is liable for diseases cause in part by the weakened condition in which defendant has places the plaintiff by negligently injuring her; e.g., injury caused by defendant weakens plaintiff, making her susceptible to pneumonia
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause Cases>Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces-Defendant Liable>Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces>Subsequent Disease
When does liability attach for subsequent accident?
Where the plaintiff suffers a subsequent injury following her original injury, and the original injury was a substantial factor in causing the second accident, the original tortfeasor is usually liable for damages arising from the second accident.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause Cases>Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces-Defendant Liable>Common Foreseeable Intervening Forces>Subsequent Accident
What is an Independent Intervening Force? When is it foreseeable?
A situation created by defendant’s negligence but are independent actions rather than natural responses or reactions to the situation.It may be foreseeable where defendant’s negligence increased the risk that these forces would cause harm to the plaintiff.It may be foreseeable where defendant’s negligence increased the risk that these forces would cause harm to the plaintiff.
CAUSATION>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)>Indirect Cause Cases>Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces— Defendant Liable>Independent Intervening Forces
When is a Defendant liable for Negligent Acts of Third Persons as Independent Intervening Forces?
Defendant is liable for harm caused by the negligence of third persons where such negligence was a foreseeable risk created by defendant’s conduct. Example: D negligently blocked a sidewalk, forcing P to walk in the roadway, where he is struck by a negligently driven car. D is liable to P.
CAUSATION>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)>Indirect Cause Cases>Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces— Defendant Liable>Independent Intervening Forces> Negligent Acts of Third Persons
When is a Defendant liable for Criminal Acts and Intentional Torts of Third Persons as Independent Intervening Forces?
Kif defendant’s negligence created a foreseeable risk that a third person would commit a crime or intentional tort, defendant’s liability will not be cut off by the crime or tort. Example: D, a parking lot attendant, negligently left the keys in P’s car and the doors unlocked when he parked it, allowing a thief to steal it. D is liable to P.
CAUSATION>Proximate Cause (Legal Causation)>Indirect Cause Cases>Foreseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces— Defendant Liable>Independent Intervening Forces> Criminal Acts and Intentional Torts of Third Persons
When do acts of god remove a defendants liability?
Acts of God will not cut off defendant’s liability if they are foreseeable.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause Cases>Independent Intervening Forces>Acts of God
When is a defendant liable for a foreseeable result caused by an unforeseeable intervening force?
Defenndants conduct threatens a result of a particular kind that will injure plaintiff. This result is ultimately produced by an unforeseeable intervening force. Example: Defendant failed to clean residue out of an oil barge, leaving it full of explosive gas. Negligence, of course, exists since an explo- sion resulting in harm to any person in the vicinity was foreseeable from any one of several possible sources. An unforeseeable bolt of lightning struck the barge, exploding the gas and injuring workers on the premises. Defendant is liable.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause Cases>Foreseeable Results Caused by Unforeseeable Intervening Forces—Defendant Usually Liable
When is a defendant not liable for a foreseeable result caused by an unforeseeable intervening force?
Most intervening forces that produce unforeseeable results are considered to be unforeseeable intervening forces. Similarly, most results caused by foreseeable intervening forces are treated as foreseeable results. es down was a foreseeable intervening force.
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Indirect Cause Cases>Unforeseeable Results Caused by Foreseeable Intervening Forces—Defendant Not Liable
What is the general rule for intervening forces that produce unforeseeable results?
Those forces are deemed to be unforeseeable and superseding
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Unforeseeable Results Caused by Unforeseeable Intervening Forces - Defendant Not Liable
What is a Superseding Force?
A force that serves to break the causal connection between defendant’s initial negligent act and the ultimate injury, and itself becomes a direct, immediate cause of the injury
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Unforeseeable Results Caused by Unforeseeable Intervening Forces - Defendant Not Liable
What is the eggshell-skull plaintiff rule?
The fact that the extent or severity of the harm was not foreseeable does not relieve the defendant of liability; Where defendant’s negligence causes an aggravation of plaintiff’s existing physical or mental illness, defendant is liable for the damages caused by the aggravation
Torts>Causation>Proximate Cause>Unforeseeable Extent or Severity of Harm - Defendant Liable
