Causation and Damages Flashcards
What two types of causes do you have to prove in a negligence claim?
(1) actual cause or “cause in fact”
(2) proximate cause
What are the 3 ways/tests of determining ACTUAL cause in negligence cases?
(1) But-for test
(2) Substantial factor test
(3) Shifting of Burden of Proof
What is the “But-For” test?
P’s injury would not have occurred but-for D’s negligent acts
Eex: D digs hole in the sidewalk + P falls into it when unguarded and unlighted and breaks his hip -> if not BUT FOR D’s hole, P would not be injured)
What is the “Substantial Factor” test & when do you use it?
When D’s negligence greatly increases the chance of injury and is a character naturally leading to the injury
- applies “more likely than not” standard to cause injury (51%)
Use it when there are multiple factors or defendants to determine what substantially increased harm
Does possibility amount to causation?
No, the mere correlation of order of events DOES NOT create or prove causation -> there must be proof that something PROBABLY caused the injury (not possibly)
What actual causation test is used for med-mal cases?
Loss of Chance Theory = P has to prove that he had a 33% better chance of medical outcomes if not for doctor’s negligence, P must prove w/ specificity the cognizable injury w/ expert testimony and science + must show that they suffered harm which would have been avoided w/ proper medical care
What is the rule for causation when separate acts of negligence occur to create harm (concurrent cases)?
Where separate acts of negligence combine to directly cause a harm, each tortfeasor is liable for the entire harm, even though each act alone may not have caused it
Difference between independently sufficient and independently necessary?
Independently sufficient ex: one fire would have destroyed the house anyway but both would have too
Independently necessary ex: each fire needed one another to destroy P’s house
When does the burden shift from P to D to prove who was negligently responsible?
When there are problems determining which party caused the harm, the burden shifts to D to figure out + present evidence to prove that they are not responsible (b/c Ds are in better position to figure it out)
ex: quail eye shot case & drug manufacturer case
What is the general rule of proximate causation?
Every person is liable for consequences of his own act and is liable in damages for proximate results but not remote damages AND reasonably foreseeable results are proximately caused
What is “proximate result?” AKA the “Ryan” rule of foreseeability in proximate cause cases
Result that could reasonably be anticipated to be caused by the act, or if it is the type that ordinarily and naturally flows from such acts.
Ex: when fire starts within building, the fire burning down the building is proximate result but not that it will burn other buildings
** liability stops after 1st person’s property
What is the “Egg Shell Plaintiff” rule for proximate cause?
D takes the P as he finds him and may be held liable for damages of aggravation of pre-existing illnesses (D is not let go of liability just b/c condition could have occurred w/o accidence)
D liable for physical injuries + mental injuries that reasonably follow (ex: D was responsible for aggravating schizo condition of P after car crash caused by D’s negligent acts)
What is the “Direct and Indirect Injury” rule for proximate cause?
If act would or might cause damage, the fact that the damage is not the exact kind of damage expected is immaterial; SO LONG AS the damage is in fact directly traceable to negligent act (ex: case where plank fell, created spark, ignited fire and then blew up ship -> D liable)
What is the foreseeability rule for proximate cause?
Person is only responsible for probable and naturally reasonably foreseeable causes (foreseeable at the time/moment of negligent act)
ex: Wagon mound case -> D knew of leaking oil but did not know, nor could reasonably foresee at the time of oil leakage, that the oil could catch fire when it spread out of the water
ex: Palsgarf case -> RR co. could not have known that patron had box of fireworks that would fall, explode and hurt P
What is the general rule for intervening causes in the causal chain in proximate causation?
An intervening act between D’s negligence and P’s injuries will NOT break the casual connection and cut off liability if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable
- highly extraordinary and unforeseeable intervening acts will break causal chain -> D not liable
What are the four cases where intervening causes (third-party factors) are always reasonably foreseeable?
(1) subsequent medical malpractice -> original tortfeasor liable for aggravation of P’s condition caused by malpractice of P’s treating doctor
(2) negligence of rescuers -> rescuers are viewed as foreseeable intervening forces where original tortfeasor is liable
(3) “reaction” forces -> where D’s actions cause another to “react,” liable to D (ex: D negligently driving car swerves and causes other driver to veer off road + other driver hits person -> D liable)
(4) subsequent disease or accident -> original tortfeasor liable for diseases/injuries caused in part of weakened condition in which D put P b/c of negligence
Under rescue doctrine, what makes someone a “rescuer?”
N.I.P.R. acronym
(N) D was (N)egligent to person rescued and such negligence caused peril or appearance of peril to person rescued
(I) imminent peril or appearance of peril
(P) reasonably (P)rudent person would conclude peril existed
(R) rescuer acted w/ (R)easonable care in effectuating rescue
What are the 3 types of damages?
(1) nominal damages
(2) compensatory damages
(3) punitive damages
