3 - Negligence; Causation (Nevada)

Causation

Proof that the defendant’s act is the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm is required in order to establish that a defendant should be held liable for that particular harm.

Actual Cause or Cause in Fact

Is the cause which starts, ignites or makes possible the result which follows, and which satisfies the “But For” or Substantial Factor Test.

“But For” Test (Actual Cause)

Is used to establish actual cause. To apply the test, the plaintiff must show that but for the defendant's act, the plaintiff would not have been injured.

Sine Qua Non (Actual Cause)

Literally means “without which not.” The term relates to the “But For” Test in that if a defendant’s act is the sine qua non of a plaintiff’s harm, then the plaintiff’s harm would not have occurred in the absence of that act.

Applying the “But For” Test to Multiple Acts (Actual Cause)

The “But For” Test may be applied where concurrent acts together produce an injury which would not have occurred but for the concurrence. Where the concurrent acts are performed by different persons, both persons are liable as concurrent tortfeasors.

Substantial Factor Test (Actual Cause)

Is used to establish actual cause where more than one act contributes to the plaintiff’s harm. The defendant is said to be an actual cause of the plaintiff's harm if the defendant’s act is a substantial factor in bringing the harm about. This means that the defendant's act contributed in more than a trivial degree to the plaintiff's injury.

The test applies where two or more acts combine to produce a single indivisible injury regardless of whether either or any of the acts by itself would have caused the injury.

Where more than one act could have caused the injury by itself, then each actor may be held jointly and severally liable. However, where an act would not have caused the injury without the other contributing acts, liability may be apportioned between the tortfeasors.

Proximate Cause

An actual cause of harm is the proximate cause of that harm if the act occurs in a natural and continuous sequence of events, unbroken by unforeseeable, independent, intervening acts and results in the harm.

When a defendant’s act directly causes injury to the plaintiff without any intervening causes, the majority of jurisdictions hold that act to be the proximate cause of harm unless the harm is unforeseeable. However, in some jurisdictions, if the defendant’s act directly causes harm, his act is the proximate cause regardless of whether the harm was foreseeable or unforeseeable.

When a dependent intervening act occurs, the chain of causation is broken only if the result of the dependent intervening act is highly unforeseeable. When an independent intervening act occurs, the chain of causation is broken unless the result of the independent act is foreseeable.

Thin Skull Plaintiff Rule

Also called the Eggshell Plaintiff Rule, an exception is made to the general rule that an unforeseeable result of the defendant’s act may break the chain of causation and negate liability. The defendant “takes his plaintiff as he finds him” in that the defendant will be liable even where his act produces an unforeseeable result if that result is due to the plaintiff’s uncommon reaction or physical defect.

Direct (Proximate)

When a defendant’s act directly causes injury to the plaintiff without any intervening causes, the majority of jurisdictions hold that act to be the proximate cause of harm unless the harm is unforeseeable. However, in some jurisdictions, if the defendant’s act directly causes harm, his act is the proximate cause regardless of whether the harm was foreseeable or unforeseeable.

Intervening Act (Proximate)

Is one that occurs after the defendant’s act and before the plaintiff’s injury.

Dependent Intervening Act (Proximate)

Is one which would not have occurred in the absence of the original negligence. It is nearly always considered to be part of the chain of events set in motion by the original negligent act. Therefore, a dependent intervening act breaks the chain of causation only if the act was highly unforeseeable.

Independent Intervening Act (Proximate)

Is one which would have occurred even in the absence of the original negligence. It breaks the chain of causation unless the act or its result was foreseeable in light of the original negligent act.

Supervening Act (Proximate)

Is an intervening act which is sufficient to prevent the defendant’s negligent act from being determined to be the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Thus a superseding cause relieves the defendant of liability.

Generally, only an unforeseeable independent intervening act or a highly unforeseeable dependent intervening act will break the chain of causation and be established as a superseding cause.