Torts I - Harm And Causation In Fact

Front 1

Is actual harm reuqired to prevail in a negligence claim?

Back 1

To prevail in a negligence claim, there must be proof of actual harm. The breach of the duty must result in actual damages. Copeland v. Compton

Front 2

What is the cause in fact rule?

Back 2

The cause in fact rule requires the plaintiff to prove that the defendant's conduct caused damages. Thus, there must be proof of harm, as well as proof that the harm was caused by the negligent conduct.

Front 3

What is a causation test for a single tortfeasor?

Back 3

The “But-For” Causation Test.
a. But-for the defendant's conduct, would the plaintiff have avoided injury? If yes, cause in fact exists. In other words, if the injury would not have occurred but-for the defendant's negligence, causation exists. Salinetro v. Nystrom.

Front 4

What problem can emerge using a "but-for" test for causation when there are multiple tortfeasors?

Back 4

Two Persons Cause Single Injury But Either One Alone Could Have Caused Injury. [Applying but-for test would relieve both of liability]

Front 5

What is the substantial factor test?

Back 5

Under the substantial factor test, if two causes concur to bring about harm, and either one alone is sufficient to cause the harm, the tortfeasor is liable for all the damage since its conduct was "a material or substantial element" in causing the harm. (Indivisible Cause)Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway.

Front 6

What Damage or Injury Was Caused must you account for the future of the plainitff absent the negligent conduct occurring?

Back 6

When determining liability and damages for negligence, the probable future of the victim but for the negligence must be considered. Present value apportionment is used where negligence causes the death of one immediately threatened with probable harm or death. Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co.

Front 7

What happens when there are multiple tortfeasors but only one actually caused the injury? Which one is liable?

Back 7

The alternative causation rule extends joint and several liability so that where both tortfeasors are negligent, but only one of them causes the injury, both will be held liable. In such situations, the burden of proof shifts to the defendants to exculpate themselves, if possible, from liability. Thus, liability exists even absent proof as to which one actually caused the injury. Summers v. Tice.

Front 8

What is the "lost chance of recover rule"?

Back 8

The lost chance of recovery rule allows liability in medical malpractice cases for failure to diagnosis or treat a life threatening pre-existing disease or injury that causes one to be deprived of a chance of recovery. Wollen v. DePaul Health Center

Front 9

What other cases create causal difficulties similiar to the lost chance of recover cases in medical malpractice?

Back 9

Mass Exposure and Toxic Torts Causation
1. Similar causation issues arise in toxic torts cases to those involved in medical malpractice value-of-the-chance cases. If a landfill or toxic waste disposal site contaminates the ground water, and persons drink the water, causal difficulties arise.