Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Causation in Fact (Chapter 5) (Proof of Causation (Gentry v. Douglas…
Causation in Fact (Chapter 5)
Sine Qua Non
Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans R. Co. (1962)
Automobile hit by a train. Train was going 37 mph. The limit was 25 mph. Accident would have occurred regardless of train speed.
It is fundamental that the negligence is not actionable unless it is a cause in fact of the harm for which recovery is sought. Negligence is a cause in fact of the harm to another if it was a substantial factor in bringing about that harm.
Proof of Causation
Reynolds v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co. (1885)
Post hoc v. Propter hoc. Where the negligence of the defendant greatly multiplies the chances of accident to the plaintiff, and is of a character naturally leading to its occurrence, the mere possibility that it might have happened without the negligence is not sufficient to break the chain of cause and effect between the negligence and injury.
Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch, Inc.
The causation element requires prove of both cause in fact and proximate cause.
Proof of causation is satisfied by proof that the party's conduct was cause-in-fact of the damaged alleged. "If the event would not have occurred but for the conduct."
Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins (1939) :
Glass fell from a transom and hit plaintiff's head and cut him. Plaintiff got cancer in the spot.
It is not enough that negligence of one person and injury to another coexisted, but the injury must have been caused by the negligence. :star:
Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound (1983)
Defendant failed to diagnose cancer on first visit to the hospital and cause proximately cause 14 percent reduction in survival.
"loss chance of survival case"-
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (p.290)
Concurrent Causes
Hill v. Edmonds (p. 299)
Tractor trailer parked in the road at night with no lights. Driver and tractor trailer owner are both liable
Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. Co. ((p. 300)
Substantial Factor test
Problems in Determining Which Party Caused The Harm
Summers v. Tice (p. 303)
Alternative Liability: burden shifts to the defendants to proof innocence
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (p. 305)
Enterprise theory of liability-Entire industry can be held liability for the harm created (Market share theory of liability- )
Negligence Per Se- when you have a statute which can be applied; allows plaintiff to reference a statute to determine what a reasonable person would do; court determines legislative intent of who the statute seek to protect and who the statute seeks to correct.
Jury must determine statute application
(1) Determine if the statute applies to circumstances of the case (this class of persons from this kind of harm)
(2) Analysis of what happened to plaintiff v. the statute.
(3) identify duty, breach of duty, causation, damage
(ss 288- a valid framework)
Res Ipsa Loquita: no facts; judge determines if it applies; 2 prong test: defendant is in control of the object and normally this incident will not occur
Joint Tort Feasers: (1) they act together (2) (3)
Theories of Liability: 1. But for, 2. Substantial factor 3. Alternative 4. Enterprise, 5. Marketshare