Negligence - Causation In Fact

Front 1

Causation In Fact (CIF) General Rule:

Back 1

Almost always "But For" Causation; But for ∆'s negligence would the injury have occurred? π needs to prove that it is more probable than not that the injury would not have occurred but for ∆'s negligence

If π can't prove "but for" causation, π's claim usually fails.

Front 2

Medical Misdiagnosis

Back 2

Definition - Where ∆'s misdiagnosis reduced the chance of survival but even without misdiagnosis, π would have died anyway.

Courts use the Substantial Factor Test for Misdiagnosis - Issue of CIF can go to jury if reasonable jury can conclude that ∆'s negligence in misdiagnosis was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury/death of the π.

Courts value damages in these cases based on Loss of Chance which is the proportion of the chance of death/injury due to ∆'s misdiagnosis.

Front 3

Toxic Exposure

Back 3

CIF is statistical evidence showing increased likelihood of developing disease after being exposed to toxic substance. Should be more than double normal risk. Increased Risk theory not adopted by any jrx.

Front 4

Concurrent Causes

Back 4

Multiple Sufficient Causes - Either cause would independently be sufficient to bring about the injury

Note 1 - Use Substantial Factor Test

Note 2 - Neither actor is "but for" cause

Note 3 - If multiple similar acts and only one causes the injury, but don't know which one, Burden of proof switches to ∆s, individually, to show that he did not cause the harm. If cannot show, both will be liable.

Multiple Insufficient Causes - If you take away one of the causes, the other would not be sufficient to bring about the injury.

Note 1 - Could both still be "but for" causes

Front 5

Substantial Factor Test

Back 5

Definition - Whether a reasonable jury could conclude that ∆'s negligent act was a substantial factor in causing π's injury.

Note 1 - Only use this test for medical misdiagnosis or cases of multiple sufficient causes. Otherwise, use "but-for".