The Causation Element
I. Key Terms
A. Actual and Proximate Cause
1. Actual vs. Proximate Cause
i. Actual Causation – Spilling hot coffee out window which hits another’s windshield and startles him and causes him to crash into a tree. Question is whether A’s Carelessness played some role in bringing about victim V’s injury?
ii. Proximate cause – Spilling coffee in the presence of a pedestrian who happens to hate littering and cause them to lift up hands and express outrage which caused them to hit a beehive and get stung repeatedly. Spilling coffee actually caused the injury but it was not the proximate cause. An injury that results is so attenuated that we say that there was no proximate causation. Question is whether A’s carelessness brought about D’s Injury in such an unexpected manner that it is inappropriate to hold A responsible for an injury that his carelessness caused.
B. Actual Cause (Cause-in-fact), the Jury and the But-For Test
1. The P must prove under preponderance of evidence standard that the D’s breach of duty more likely than not functioned as a cause of the P’s injury.
i. In other words, would the P have been injured if the D had acted with reasonable care? If Yes then there is actual causation, if No then there is no actual causation
II. Proving But-For Causation Under the Preponderance Standard
A. The plaintiff must prove it is more likely than not that but D’s conduct the P’s injuries wouldn’t have occurred.
1. Skinner v. Square D Co. – P contends D’s switch did not inform him as to whether the power was on or off and that caused him to get electrocuted and die. Court held that the P’s causation theory is faulty. They contend that the defective switch made them confused as to whether the machine was on or off. This is defective because the motor makes a loud noise when its on and that one can’t be confused as to whether the power is on or off. P’s alternate theory is that the P thought the machine was off because of the switch, but the power was not actually on, but the machine wasn’t running because the wires weren’t attached to the alligator chips. There is no evidence showing this and this is merely a possibility not a probability that is required.
i. Professor – The court found that the switch was defective, but it didn’t matter because the plaintiff did not come up with a plausible story where how the switch caused the injury. We learn that the plaintiff must make a factually detailed story about how the defendant caused the injury.
2. Beswick v. City of Philadel
ne and the P had no chance of survival. There is a difference between causing a shortening of life and causing a lesser chance of surviving. Patients go to doctors to minimize their chances of death. By not inserting the intravenous line the doctor caused her harm which is reducing her chances of survival. Other courts that recognize this standard require that the P prove by the preponderance of the evidence that the D reduced the chance of surviving. 37.5 percent is enough of a lost opportunity and the court doesn’t go into what lesser percentage would constitute a substantial loss of opportunity. In this case the hospital liable not for the fact that the patient died but because of the lost opportunity.
i. The plaintiff will only get a percentage of the wrongful death compensation corresponding to the chance of survival that was lost.
C. General principles in determining whether there is actual cause:
1. The but-for test for actual cause
2. P’s burden of proof under the preponderance standard
