CAUSATION IN FACT
Negligence: (1) Duty of care owed by D to P, (2) Breach of Duty, (3) Causation of P’s injury from D’s breach, (4) Actual damages to p from D’s breach
Must meet both causation elements: (1) Causation in Fact and (2) Proximate cause {more specific limited cause in fact}
Sine Qua Non—“but for” test: The doctrine that causation exists only when the result would not have occurred without the party’s conduct; D not liable for negligence unless P’s conduct was that without which the injury would not have occurred; An indispensable condition; something on which something else necessarily depends. More than speculation
Perkins v. Texas and New Orleans Ry. Co.—Train hit car because view was obstructed; P failed to show D’s negligence in speeding was a substantial factor in the accident b/c it would have happened regardless of train speeding
Proof Required—{P} must establish link between D’s action and P’s injury—mere speculation is not enough, but on the other hand, absolute proof is not required; proof that D’s conduct was a probable cause is required
D must then provide some rebuttal evidence—at least evidence of other possible causes, along with evidence regarding improbability of own cause
Reynolds v. Texas & Pac. Ry. Co.—P {overweight} fell down unlit steps as she was rushing to meet the train; mere possibility that action may happen without D’s negligence insufficient to break chain of effect; P needs to prove D’s actions greatly increased the likelihood of their injury; meets “but for” test. P doesn’t need to show absolute/doubt can exist
Gentry v. Douglas Hereford Ranch, Inc.—D stumbles and accidentally shoots/kills woman; evidence did not establish D’s negligence in maintaining stairs was cause-in-fact of D stumbling, discharging, killing decedent. Krone v. McCann – P sought damages from falling on property; could not show what tripped her. P lost as has to provide evidence to reasonably infer fault
Kramer Service, Inc. v. Wilkins—P’s head cut due to D’s negligence; P later gets cancer on that spot; D liable for cut but not for cancer; needs more proof to establish link than mere possibility; probability is required. 2 med experts couldn’t agree
Wilder v. Eberhart—malpractice {gastro bypass} case; D need not prove another cause, only that P’s cause was not probable. P can provide experts to indicate other possible causes. Proximate Causation in malpractice proved by med expert
Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound—Loss of Chance Doctrine: provides a claim against a doctor who has engaged in malpractice that doe not result in a particular injury but decreases or eliminates the chance of surviving or recovering from the preexisting condition for which the doctor was consulted. 39% to 25%, D liable for losses aka %
Concurrent Causes—One of two or more causes that simultaneously produce a result ; combine to cause injury
Each cause, if substantial factor, results in liability (“but for,” per se, doesn’t always apply
Hill v. Edmonds—P driver was negligent for collision but D was negligent for leaving truck in the road; If both were negligent and the accident needed both of them to occur, then they are both liable; “Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury each tortfeasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.”
Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. R.R. Co.—D RR negligently started a fire and it joined with another fire; each can be held jointly/severally liable for all the damages. C
In re Arbitration between Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co., Ltd.—While unloading ship full of flammable substances, plank was negligently dropped, created a spark which set fire to the vessel and sunk it; If at least some damage was foreseeable, then D is responsible for all damages
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Morts Dock & Eng. Co., Ltd.—Wagon Mound No. 1—Oil dumped into water from ship; cotton waste was floating on water’s surface; Fire started when molten metal dropped into the water; type of harm should be foreseeable so D not liable as damage was not within circle of reasonable foreseeability. P was owner of dock
Overseas Tankship (U.K.) Ltd. v. Miller Steamship Co.—Wagon Mound No. 2—Small risk is not unforeseeable: Reasonable person {ships engineer} should have seen risk and not dismissed. P were owners of ship.
Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R. Co.—P injured from explosion when D dropped a package containing fireworks; duty only to reasonably foreseeable P. Dissent said fairness test should be used, P should win {Polemis test – direct harm + fair to P}
Yun v. Ford Motor Co.—P’s decedent died when struck by a vehicle as he crossed highway to retrieve spare tire that had fallen off; D’s not liable because decedent’s behavior was a subsequent intervening force; no proximate cause between defective product and the injury. Garage told him to fix it, not liable. Defect did not injure P, he pulled over
