Causation Flashcards
But for causation and when it is not applicable
Cause in fact is a “but for” inquiry that tests whether the injury or death would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent conduct (Cay v. Louisiana).
A negligent defendant cannot be held liable for a plaintiff’s injuries if the defendant’s negligence was not the legal cause of the injuries (pulling out into an incoming truck).
- Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct (Rowdy person in theater causing an injury/Rutledge case).
Multiple sufficient causes
If multiple acts occur, each of which . . . alone would have been a factual cause of the physical harm at the same time in the absence of the other act(s), each act is regarded as a factual cause of the harm.
Alternative liability to multiple causes (two possible scenarios)
applies in a multiple tortfeasor scenario where there is a true but-for cause associated with the tort, but the plaintiff is not in a position to identify, between the tortfeasors, which one is responsible for causing the harm. TWO options:
1- If multiple acts occur, each of which alone would have been a factual cause of the physical harm at the same time in the absence of the other act(s), each act is regarded as a factual cause of the harm.
2- two independent tortfeasors may be held jointly liable if it is impossible to tell which one caused the plaintiff’s injuries, and the burden of proof will shift to the defendants to either absolve themselves of liability or apportion the damages between them.
What does the doctrine of alternative liability require?
all individuals believed to have committed the tortious act against a plaintiff be named as defendants in the litigation. The reason for the requirement is to prevent a tortfeasor from escaping liability simply because the nature of the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury to the plaintiff made it difficult or impossible to prove which defendant caused the harm.
What if we had multiple negligent manufacturers of fungible goods named as defendants?
If multiple manufacturers of fungible goods are named as defendants in a negligence action and it cannot be determined which manufacturer caused the precise harm complained of the manufacturers will be held proportionately liable in accordance with their market share in the market of the good that caused the injury (drug case by multiple manufacturers harmed someone).
can plaintiffs recover in a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in the absence of physical harm (as the basis for increased risk for future harm)?
No, A plaintiff may not recover mental-anguish damages pursuant to a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress in the absence of a physical injury sustained due to the defendant’s negligent conduct. The problem lies in the unpredictability of the claims presented and how best to evaluate which exposure claims are serious and which are not. It may not have future harm. (Asbestos exposure case)
Could plaintiffs recover for loss of opportunity when the defendant’s negligence deprives the plaintiff of a substantially better result (recovery based on lost chance?)
Yes, a plaintiff may recover for loss of opportunity when the defendant’s negligence deprives the plaintiff of a substantially better result, even if the chances of a better result were fifty percent or less. The plaintiff will not recover damages for the entire injury but will recover the amount that the defendant’s negligence decreased the plaintiff’s chances of a more favorable outcome (MD malpractice case with misdiagnosis).
