Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
13 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What does causation actually mean |
CAUSATION IS A 2 PART TEST! cause in fact + proximate cause = LEGAL CAUSE
|
|
|
Cause in fact |
The historical question - was the D's conduct a cause for the P's injury? - "but for" - Alternatives to the "but for" - Substantial Factors |
|
|
Proximate cause |
prevents unlimited liability |
|
|
Alternatives to the But-For test (BMMAC) |
but-for multiple sufficient causes market share alternative liability concert of action |
|
|
I stab you in the leg. You go to the hospital for treatment, where you slip on a puddle, hit your head on the floor, and die due to brain damage caused in the fall. Am I responsible? |
The stabbing passes the "cause in fact" but-for test, but for my stabbing you never would have slipped in the hospital. It doesn't pass the proximate cause test. You slipping and falling in the hospital wasn't at all forseeable and I can't be held responsible for it. |
|
|
multiple sufficient causes |
two people satisfy but-for test independently (P must prove both sufficient to cause harm) (each D must prove his act was not legal cause of harm, either by other guy's act so much greater than yours, or you didnt contribute to harm at all) (100+100) |
|
|
alternative liability |
all the defendants contributed to produce plaintiff's harm only one caused harm, but plaintiff cannot determine which one did (x+x?) P MUST BE SUING ALL THE TORTFEASORS, CANT SETTLE WITH ONE AND SUE THE OTHERS |
|
|
Substantial factor |
Not majority, but texan. D's conduct was important enough compared to other causes to justify liabiltiy P must prove each one is cause of harm |
|
|
Market share / modified alternative liability |
dangerous fungible product made by all defendants and you cant figure out which d made it - generic drug that has bad side effect or something (drug manufacturers, esp) |
|
|
Apportioning damages by percentage |
1) determine full damages 2) determine chance of survival but for neglience 3) determine chance after negligence 4) subtract to find difference 5) multiple and award $100,000 in damages. survival chance was 75%. negligence dropped it to 25%. .75-.25 =.50 .50 X $100,000 = $50,000 |
|
|
Can you be awarded for increased chance of future consequences? |
Yes |
|
|
Statutes of limitation on causation |
discovery rule - prevents statute of limitation period from beginning to run until victim knows or should reasonably know of injury (10 yrs from moment you knew of harm, not since harm happened) |
|
|
Concert of action |
makes additional defendant liable along with first defendant - for acting in concert together 3 ways: 1) does a tortious act in concert with other d 2) knows the others conduct constitutes a breach of duty and give substantial assistance of encouragement 3) gives substantial assistance or encouragement in accomplishing tort and his own separate conduct is a tortious act |
