Causation
Welcome to the Spring Semester!
—
Midterm Review
Semester Overview
Negligence
— Causation
—— Factual Causation
—— Proximate Cause
— Defenses
—— Contributory & Comparative Negligence
—— Assumption of Risk
Semester Overview
Strict Liability
— Traditional view
— Products liability
—— Manufacturing defects
—— Design defects
—— Warnings
—— Defenses
Semester Overview
Intentional Torts
— Types of intentional tort
— Defenses
Alternatives to Tort
Causation
Two parts:
- Factual cause
- Proximate cause
Factual causation is usually straightforward
Adams v. Bullock: “The Swinging Wire and Electric Trolley”
Martin v. Herzog: “The Buggy Without Lights”
Byrne v. Boadle: “The Falling Flour Barrel”
Reynolds v. Hicks: “Underage Drinking and Driving”
Stubbs v. City of Rochester
Two different tests for factual causation
- “But for”
- Substantial factor
California Jury Instructions
A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm.
[Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.]
Zuchowicz v. United States
Four typical scenarios in which factual cause may be contested
- Toxic exposure
- No idea what happened
- Know what happened, but don’t know that it wouldn’t have happened if defendant had behaved reasonably
- Know what happened, but don’t know who to blame