Causation Cases

Question 1

N.Y. Central R.R. vs. Grimstad

Answer 1

Barge was in the port and man fell into the water. π’s wife went to find a life preserve to throw but boat was not equipped.

Rule: A negligent party is liable only for those damages which were actually caused by his negligence

Court ruled for the ∆ because even though a breach of duty was found it could not be said that but for the life preserver being on the boat the husband would have survived.

Question 2

Kirincich v. Standard

Answer 2

Man fell off boat and shipmates tried to save him, but boat was ill equipped with life preserver.

Court ruled in favor of Kirincich decedent because but-for failing to have the proper equipment would π have survived. Maybe.

Question 3

Reyes v. Vantage Steamship

Answer 3

π jumped off boat and tried to swim to buoy. Was drunk at the time. Boat didn’t have the proper life saving equipment.

Court ruled in favor of π. Boat was supposed to have the equipment but didn’t. Boat doesn’t get the benefit of the doubt Statutory issue?

Question 4

Haft v. Lone Palm Hotel

Answer 4

Mans and son drown in pool. Court rules in favor of the decedents. Res Ispa Loquitar. Burden of proof shifts from the π to the ∆. Statute required a lifeguard.

Rule: Where defendant’s negligence deprives the plaintiff’s a means of definitely establishing a cause-in-fact leading to the injury, the burden of proof to show the contrary shifts to the defendant.

Question 5

General Electric v. Joiner

Answer 5

Man who worked for General Electric and was also a smoker, his parents were smokers and he had a history of lung cancer in his family. He got cancer and admitted he was at a heightened risk of getting cancer but fluid increased that risk.

Rule: When reviewing a trial court’s decision to admit or exclude expert testimony, an appellate court should apply an abuse of discretion standard.

Question 6

Polemis

Answer 6

Heavy plank fell causing sparks and fire that consumed the ship

2. Classic Directness test used to hold defendants liable where court finds that once breach of duty has been established defendant is liable for all direct consequences.

Rule: Foreseeability is material only to determining breach of duty, not to whether it is a proximate cause of the damage. Once a breach of duty has been established, defendant is responsible for all damages regardless of remoteness. Directness test used to establish causation.

Question 7

Hines v. Garrett

Answer 7

Train failed to stop at a stop and Hines was forced to walk a mile through an unsafe neighborhood in the dark. She was raped twice.

Although criminal acts of third parties severs liability, a party will be held liable if the harm is foreseeable.

Tthe harm Ms. Garrett suffered was within the risk created by the railroad’s negligence, and as a common carrier, the railroad owed her a duty to protect against that risk if she did not voluntarily disembark.

Question 8

Berry v. Sugar Notch

Answer 8

The π was speeding through the town during a storm when a branch fell on his car.

Rule: A plaintiff’s contributory negligence that is not a proximate cause of his injury will not bar him from recovering for an injury occurring purely by chance.

Negligence per se was not the proximate cause of injury.. Speeding did nothing to increase his chances of being crushed.

Question 9

Wagon Mound

Answer 9

Foresight test…
Barge dumped oil into dock area. oil spread to where a welding shop was working on a boat. Welding continued and boat caught on fire.

Rule: An event that is not reasonably foreseeable cannot be said to have proximately caused the ensuing damage.

Question 10

Palsgraf

Answer 10

Rule: Duty has to be in relation to the wrong. The risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed.

-Cardozo takes a narrow view of duty as being relational to a particular class as opposed to the entire public.  No causation issue because plaintiff falls outside bounds of foreseeable class to which duty is owed.  
However, breach of duty would entail liability for any and all consequences, however novel or extraordinary (Cardozo adopts a directness test on causation).  Foreseeability establishes duty.
Dissent sees duty to the public at large but adopts a “substantial factor test” in establishing causation through a directness test.