Chapter Five: Cause in fact

1
Chapter Five Cause in fact
Duty Breach Causation Actual cause, or cause in
fact Proximate cause Damages
2
Chapter 5 Cause in fact
The plaintiff must show that but for the
defendants negligence, the harm s/he suffered
would not have occurred.
3
Chapter 5 Cause in Fact (3) Multiple
Defendants
Summers v. Tice Two defendants each shoot
negligently in plaintiffs direction. Plaintiff
is hit, cannot show which gun fired the shot that
hit him. Are the defendants concurrent
tortfeasors? Did they act in concert? What is the
basis for finding them jointly and severally
liable? Should we reconsider the result in the
high school marching band mothers food
poisoning hypothetical?
4
Chapter 5 Cause in Fact (3) Multiple
Defendants
When are multiple defendants jointly and
severally liable? Alternative liability When
two (or more?) defendants, (all whom are before
the court?), are negligent, but it is uncertain
which one caused the injury, each defendant is
jointly and severally liable for the entire harm
unless the defendant can show his act did not
cause the harm.
5
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple defendants
Note 8, p. 377 Defendant A manufactures drug A.
Defendant B manufactures drug B. Defendant A
should have known drug A can cause blindness and
is negligent for manufacturing it. B also can
cause blindness, but defendant B had no way of
knowing that, and was not negligent for
manufacturing it. Plaintiff takes both drugs,
either of which alone would have caused him to
become blind. Is defendant A liable? Suppose
both defendant A and defendant B were negligent?
6
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple defendants
A cautionary note the substantial factor test
for causation 431 What Constitutes Legal
Cause The actors negligent conduct is a legal
cause of harm to another if (a) his conduct is
a substantial factor in bringing about the harm,
and (b) there is no rule of law relieving the
actor from liability because of the manner in
which his negligence has resulted in harm.
7
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple
defendants
Restatement, Second, of Torts 432 Negligent
Conduct as Necessary Antecedent of Harm (1)
Except as stated in Subsection (2), the actor's
negligent conduct is not a substantial factor in
bringing about harm to another if the harm would
have been sustained even if the actor had not
been negligent. (2) If two forces are
actively operating, one because of the actor's
negligence, the other not because of any
misconduct on his part, and each of itself is
sufficient to bring about harm to another, the
actor's negligence may be found to be a
substantial factor in bringing it about.
8
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple
defendants

• Factors to consider in determining whether the
  defendants conduct is a substantial factor in
  causing harm
• the number of other, contributing factors
• whether the force is active or merely sets the
  stage for harm
• lapse of time
• Restatement, Second of Torts, 433

9
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple defendants

• When are multiple defendants jointly and
  severally liable?
• concurrent tortfeasors (single harm, as opposed
  to divisible, successive or apportionable
  harms)
• inability to apportion
• acting in concert
• other vicariously liable defendants
• alternative liability (Summers v. Tice)
• alternative liability / twin fires scenario

10
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple defendants
Hymowitz v. Eli Lilly Market Share
liability Where 1) manufacturers act in a
parallel manner 2) to produce an identical,
generic product 3) which causes injury many years
later 4) and the legislature has created an
expectation that recovery will be available by
creating an exception to the statute of
limitations liability will be apportioned even
though the plaintiff cannot show which
manufacturer produced the product that harmed her.
11
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple defendants
What is the basis for apportionment? National
market share or local market share? Is liability
joint or several? Can the defendant prove out
by showing It did not manufacture DES for
pregnancy use? It did not manufacture the DES
the plaintiff took?
12
Chapter 5 Cause in fact (3) Multiple defendants

• When are multiple defendants jointly and
  severally liable?
• concurrent tortfeasors
• inability to apportion
• acting in concert
• other vicariously liable defendants
• alternative liability (Summers v. Tice)
• alternative liability / twin fires scenario
• market share liability

13
Chapter Five Proximate Cause
Duty Breach Causation Defendants act must be
both An actual cause, or cause in fact of the
plaintiffs injury And a proximate cause of the
injury. Damages
14
Ch. V Proximate Cause The Texas City Disaster
Nearby ships, high risk of fire damage
Docks, small but foreseeable risk of fire damage
People and property near the docks
People and property several miles from the
docks, no foreseeable risk from fire
People whose jobs were destroyed
15
Chapter Five Proximate Cause An Approach

• 1) What category of cases does your case fall
  into?
• Unforeseen Harm
• Unforeseen Manner
• Unforeseen Plaintiff
• Practice tip Your theory of the case -- duty,
  breach, cause in fact -- determines this!
• Practice tip Any given case may have more than
  one possible theory, with different proximate
  cause implications!

16
Chapter Five Proximate Cause An Approach
2) What rule -- doctrine -- applies to this
particular category? Practice tip For some
categories, different jurisdictions -- or
different cases within a jurisdiction --may
follow different rules!
17
Chapter Five Proximate Cause An approach
3) Apply the rule you settle on to the facts
you have. Practice tip Outcomes will depend on
evidence and argument they are not
obvious! Practice tip Pay attention to the
roles of judge and jury!
18
Chapter Five Proximate Cause

• What could the rules be three basic options
• Defendant has a duty to this plaintiff, has been
  negligent, and his negligence has in fact caused
  harm. Should his liability extend
• to the results that were foreseeable at the time
  he acted, and no further?
• 2) to all the results of his actions,
  foreseeable or not?
• 3) to some, but not all of the unforeseeable
  consequences of his actions?

19
Chapter Five Proximate Cause
In Benn, which characterizes the courts
approach Defendant has been negligent, and his
negligence has in fact caused harm. Should his
liability extend 1) to the foreseeable results
of his actions, and no further? 2) to all the
results of his actions, foreseeable or not? 3)
to some, but not all of the unforeseeable
consequences of his actions?
20
Chapter Five Proximate Cause
Does the defendants liability extend 1) only
to the foreseeable results of his actions? 2) to
all the results of his actions, foreseeable or
not? Eggshell skull rule liable for full extent
of harm when preexisting condition causes
physical injurys extent to be unexpected. 3) to
some, but not all of the unforeseeable
consequences of his actions?
21
Unexpected Harm
1. Fact Pattern 1 the eggshell skull
plaintiff 2. Rule Liable for the full extent
of the harm, even if it is unforeseeable 3.
Application Characterize the defendants acts
as creating a foreseeable risk of physical
injury to this plaintiff, the extent of the harm
is then irrelevant
22
Unexpected Harm

• In Polemis, which characterizes the courts
  approach
• Defendant has been negligent, and his negligence
  has in fact caused harm. Should his liability
  extend
• to the foreseeable results of his actions?
• 2) to all the results of his actions, foreseeable
  or not?
• 3) to some, but not all of the unforeseeable
  consequences of his actions?

23
Unexpected Harm

• In Polemis, which characterizes the courts
  approach
• Defendant has been negligent, and his negligence
  has in fact caused harm. Should his liability
  extend
• to the foreseeable results of his actions, and no
  further?
• 2) to all the results of his actions, foreseeable
  or not?
• 3) to some, but not all of the unforeseeable
  consequences of his actions?
• Polemis (all harm directly caused)

24
Unexpected Harm

• In Wagon Mound, which characterizes the courts
  approach
• Defendant has been negligent, and his negligence
  has in fact caused harm. Should his liability
  extend
• to the foreseeable results of his actions, and no
  further?
• 2) to all the results of his actions, foreseeable
  or not?
• 3) to some, but not all of the unforeseeable
  consequences of his actions?

25
Unexpected Harm
Does the defendants liability extend 1) only
to the foreseeable results of his actions, and no
further? Wagon Mound I 2) to all the results of
his actions, foreseeable or not? 3) to some, but
not all of the unforeseeable consequences of his
actions?
26
Unexpected Harm
Does the defendants liability extend 1) only
to the foreseeable results of his actions, and no
further? Wagon Mound I 2) to all the results of
his actions, foreseeable or not? Eggshell skull
rule 3) to some, but not all of the
unforeseeable consequences of his
actions? Polemis (all harm directly caused)
27
An approach
1. Fact Pattern 2 the unexpected harm, but not
eggshell skull 2. Rule A division in
authority Polemis all harm that is directly
caused Wagon Mound I liability limited to what
was foreseeable 3. Application Under the WM
approach Characterize the foreseeable risk
broadly, if you are the plaintiff narrowly, if
you are the defendant. Under the Polemis
approach Is the causation direct.