Week 8 - Causation: General, Specific, and Proximate

Class Notes

Transcript:
Page 74 line 9, line 25: reference to training session, lieu of session, per use of inflatable obstacle course
Page 75, line 16: from per use of the inflatable obstacle course
For this reason, court should exclude….

Use title

General Causation, Specific Cause, Proximate Cause

• Specific Cause: did this defect cause the accident (but-for)

• General Causation: Can this defect cause the injury

  • General causation may not be needed if intuitive

• Proximate Causation: Was the defect the cause (foreseeability)

Daubert trilogy: Factual Basis, Fit, Relevance

Rider (General Causation)

• Case report (anecdote of a individual)

Midwestern (Specific Causation)

Union Pump (Proximate Causation)

• Proximate causation is the second opportunity for the claim to be too remote after figuring out duty

• Purple orangutan?

Market Share Liability

• No one know who supplied the product, market share allows the cast of manufacturers to be sued

Rider v. Sandoz Pharmaceutical Corp Background

The Issue on Appeal Two women, Bridget Siharath and Bonnie Rider, sued the maker of the drug Parlodel, claiming it caused the strokes they had after giving birth, and the question was whether their experts' testimony linking the drug to stroke could be used. The trial court found the testimony not reliable enough under the Daubert standard and ruled for the drug company without a trial, and the appeals court agreed

The Women's Use of the Drug Both women took Parlodel to stop breast milk production after childbirth, and its active ingredient, bromocriptine, belongs to a drug family called ergot alkaloids. Both women later suffered strokes caused by bleeding in the brain.

Legal Procedure

What Happened in the Trial Court The drug company asked the court to block the plaintiffs' experts and end the case, and because the two cases were the same, the court handled them together at a three-day hearing. The court found the experts relied on guesswork, using the kind of reasoning doctors use when treating patients with incomplete information rather than true scientific method, so it excluded the testimony and ruled for the company.

Legal Standard

From Frye to the Daubert Trilogy Cases claiming harm from toxic substances are won or lost on scientific proof of causation, and for decades courts admitted such evidence only if it was "generally accepted" by scientists under the 1923 Frye case. When the Federal Rules of Evidence took effect in 1975, it was unclear whether Rule 702's reliability test replaced Frye, and three Supreme Court cases known as the Daubert trilogy settled the question.

Daubert's Reliability Factors Since Daubert, judges act as gatekeepers who decide whether scientific evidence is reliable enough for a jury to hear, with reliability as the core requirement. The Court listed four factors: whether the theory can be and has been tested, whether experts in the field have reviewed it, its known error rate, and whether scientists in the field generally accept it.

Joiner and the "Fit" Requirement Joiner held that appeals courts should overturn a trial judge's decision on admitting evidence only if the judge clearly abused their discretion. It also required a "fit" between an expert's method and conclusions, so evidence can be excluded when there is "too great an analytical gap" between the data and the opinion.

Kumho Tire and Expert Rigor Kumho Tire held that an expert's personal experience alone is not enough, since conclusions must rest on sound principles from a reliable field. The test is whether the expert uses the same careful thinking in court as in their professional work, and judges have wide freedom in how they judge reliability.

Legal Argument by Plaintiff

The Plaintiffs' Chain of Reasoning The plaintiffs offered five well-qualified experts, two of whom testified at the hearing. Their theory was that Parlodel's ingredient, like related drugs, narrows blood vessels, and that this raises blood pressure and causes strokes from blocked blood flow, and therefore bleeding strokes as well

Six Types of Evidence The plaintiffs' evidence fell into six groups: population studies, individual patient reports, tests of stopping and restarting the drug, and evidence about related drugs. They also offered animal studies and an FDA statement withdrawing approval of Parlodel for stopping milk production.

Legal Issues with Evidence

Population Studies (Epidemiology) Population studies are usually the best proof of causation, but of the four offered, three showed no link or a negative link and the fourth only possibly suggested one, and both sides agreed none was statistically meaningful. Because such studies are not required to prove causation, the hard question was whether the other evidence was enough under Daubert.

Individual Patient Reports Case reports simply describe what happened to one patient, and many lacked basic details such as medical history or reasons for ruling out other causes. Even detailed reports cannot rule out that one patient's reaction was a fluke or had unknown causes, so they can support other proof but usually cannot prove causation alone, as the trial court correctly found.

Stopping and Restarting the Drug These tests stop a suspected drug to see if a reaction fades, then restart it to see if the reaction returns, and they can work like a one-person controlled study. But none of the reports involved a stroke, so at most they suggested the drug might narrow blood vessels in one area or lower blood pressure, and they are still only case reports.

Comparisons to Related Drugs The plaintiffs argued that because related drugs in the same family narrow blood vessels, bromocriptine must too. The court disagreed because the drug family is very diverse and small chemical differences can change how a drug acts, and the plaintiffs offered no theory for why bromocriptine would work the same way.

Animal Studies The animal studies showed that the drug narrowed blood vessels in dogs and some other animals, but none showed it caused stroke or even high blood pressure. The trial court reasonably found there was not enough evidence that the drug would affect humans the same way.

Legal Reasoning

First Gap — Related Drugs The court found three gaps in the plaintiffs' reasoning, starting with the claim that bromocriptine narrows blood vessels because some related drugs do. There was no real evidence for this claim at all, only speculation and guesswork.

Second Gap — Animals to Humans The plaintiffs wanted the court to apply animal study results to humans, but their own experts admitted that what happens in animals does not necessarily happen in people. The plaintiffs never explained why human and animal blood vessels are similar enough to justify that leap.

Third Gap — Two Different Kinds of Stroke The weakest link was assuming that evidence about strokes from blocked blood flow also applies to strokes from bleeding, which work through entirely different processes despite sharing the name "stroke". The plaintiffs also gave no reliable evidence that Parlodel raises blood pressure enough to burst blood vessels, or how that would cause a bleeding stroke, so excluding the evidence was proper.

Court Affirms Exclusion Plaintiffs can prove causation without population studies, but these plaintiffs offered no reliable evidence and would need several unsupported "leaps of faith". Courts may admit only the science as it currently stands, not guesswork, because "Law lags science; it does not lead it," so the appeals court affirmed.

How Plaintiff can answer the But-for question

The "But-For" Question This section covers cases where the plaintiff can prove the defendant made a defective product that caused harm, but struggles to show that the defect itself played a role. The key question is what would have happened without the defect, meaning whether the plaintiff would have been hurt anyway.

How This Differs From Identifying the Defendant Unlike cases about which company made the product, here it is usually clear that the defendant's product caused the harm, and the only question is what role the defect played. The latest Restatement combines this question with the earlier one under the single label "factual cause".

Midwestern V.W. Corp. v. Ringley Background

The Brake Problems and the Crash Soon after buying the new car, Wanda took it back to the dealer three times because it pulled to the right when she braked, and each time she was told it had been fixed. Eight days after the last repair, the right front brake grabbed on a wet road and the car spun into a pole, and her witnesses said the right front brake drum was "out of round," meaning not perfectly circular, a factory defect that causes pulling.

Legal Question

Causation Decides the Case The defendants disputed Wanda's account and whether the brake drum was really out of round, but the court said those disputes were properly left to the jury. The court found that one issue decided the case: whether Wanda had proved that the defect caused the crash

Legal Standard

"Probable," Not Just "Possible," Cause Strict liability means a manufacturer can be liable without proof of carelessness, but the plaintiff still has to prove causation. She must give evidence that the defect was the "probable" cause rather than just one "possible" cause, or the verdict rests on guesswork.

Legal Reasoning

Other Possible Causes Wanda's witnesses admitted that dirt, dust, or water in the left brake, a too-tight right brake, tire pressure, or poor alignment could also make the car pull right, and one said the right brake was found adjusted too tightly. Most testimony focused on proving a defect, and no expert said the out-of-round drum "probably" caused the pull at the time of the crash.

"Probable," Not Just "Possible," Cause Strict liability means a manufacturer can be liable without proof of carelessness, but the plaintiff still has to prove causation. She must give evidence that the defect was the "probable" cause rather than just one "possible" cause, or the verdict rests on guesswork.

The Only Helpful Testimony Was Too Vague The only evidence close to showing probability was one witness's answer that the only explanation he could see was the out-of-round drum and worn brake lining. The court found that answer too uncertain to count as testimony about what probably happened.

The Gaidry Case Distinguished and Reversal Wanda relied on Gaidry Motors, where a used car's brakes grabbed only 14 blocks after purchase and mechanics found grease on a brake drum, which was enough to go to a jury. The court said Gaidry was different because so little time had passed and there was no other explanation, so it reversed and ordered Wanda's claim dismissed.

Cases that clash with Ringley

Looser Rules in Asbestos Cases Because asbestos diseases take decades to appear, have complicated causes, and make it hard to identify who caused an exposure, some courts do not require proof that one defendant's asbestos more likely than not caused the disease. Other courts keep the stricter traditional rule, and Kentucky, for example, rejects the idea that "any" exposure is enough.

Expert Testimony Must Match the Legal Test In asbestos cases, whether an expert's testimony is allowed and can get the case to a jury depends on whether it addresses the specific legal standard that applies. For example, Georgia rejected testimony that any exposure above normal background levels mattered, and Texas requires evidence of roughly how much of the defendant's asbestos the plaintiff was exposed to.

Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton Background

The Pump Fire In 1989, a pump made by Union Pump caught fire at a Texaco Chemical plant in Port Arthur, Texas, and it was the third time that pump had caught fire. Sue Allbritton, a trainee, helped her supervisor, Felipe Subia, fight the fire, and after it was put out two hours later, Subia was sent to close a problem valve during what may still have been an emergency.

The Fall From the Pipe Rack Allbritton went with Subia and followed him over a pipe rack about two and a half feet high, a shorter but less safe route, and on the way back they took the same route after learning the valve did not need closing. She hopped or slipped off the rack, which was wet from the firefighting, while still wearing hip boots and gear, and Subia admitted he crossed the rack out of a "bad habit".

Procedural History

Her Claims and the Request to End the Case Early Allbritton sued Union Pump, claiming that without the defective pump's fire she would never have crossed the wet pipe rack. Union Pump asked the court to end the case without a trial, which requires showing there is no real dispute of fact and that at least one required part of each claim is clearly disproved.

The Issue and How the Case Got Here The question is whether the defendant's product was too distantly connected to the plaintiff's injury to count as a legal cause of it. The trial court ruled for the defendant without a trial and the appeals court reversed, but the Texas Supreme Court reversed again and ruled that the plaintiff gets nothing.

Legal Standard

The Question Before the Court Every doubt must be resolved in Allbritton's favor, and the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to her. The question is whether Union Pump clearly showed that neither its conduct nor its pump legally caused her injuries.

Two Types of Causation Negligence claims require "proximate cause," which means both actual causation and foreseeability, while strict liability claims require "producing cause," which does not require foreseeability. Both require that the defendant's conduct or product was a "substantial factor" in bringing about the injury.

Some Causes Are Too Remote At some point a defendant's link to an injury becomes too distant to count, and drawing that line involves weighing policy concerns. Courts do not hold people responsible for remote results, so they use proximate cause as a practical, common-sense test rather than a philosophical one.

The Lear Siegler Case Many cases have tried to draw this line, including the similar case of Lear Siegler v. Perez. There, a highway worker got out of his truck to fix loose wires on a flashing warning sign, and a sleeping driver hit the sign, which then struck and killed him.

The "Substantial Factor" Test In Lear Siegler, the court relied on the Restatement's rule that it is not enough that the harm would not have happened without the defendant's conduct. The conduct must be a substantial factor, meaning reasonable people would see it as a real cause in the everyday sense, not just one of countless events that came before.

Merely Setting the Stage Is Not Enough The link between a defendant and an injury can be too weak to count as legal cause. A product that does no more than create the conditions that make an injury possible is not a legal cause, and this applies to both negligence and strict liability.

The Bell v. Campbell Case In Bell, a trailer came loose and overturned after two cars crashed, and people who later came to move it were hit by another car. The court held that the drivers in the first crash were not responsible, because their conduct was complete and only created a situation that drew the victims to the scene where someone else hurt them.

"The Forces Had Come to Rest" The court noted that rules about outside events that break the chain of causation overlap with rules about causes that combine, but the two are not the same. In Bell, the injuries were caused by an independent later event, and because everything set in motion by the first crash had settled and no one was in danger, the first drivers did not share the blame.

Legal Reasoning

Applying the Rule to Allbritton Even if the fire was a "but-for" cause, everything it set in motion had settled by the time she fell, because the fire was out and she was walking away. The fire only created the conditions that made her injury possible, so it was too remote to be a legal cause, and the court ruled that she gets nothing.

Dissent

Justice Spector argued that the case should not have ended without a trial, because the situation the fire created had not settled and the emergency was still going on. He pointed out that the area was covered in water and foam, in places almost knee-deep, and that Allbritton was still wearing her firefighting gea