Was the breach a cause of the plaintiff's harm?

Strict (If yes)

The defendants breach has to be the cause the cause of the plaintiff’s harm. Ultrahazardous: The accident has to be the cause of the harm. Product: Make sure the defect NOT the product itself is the cause of the plaintiff’s harm.

Strict yes - product design example

Speller: Plaintiff claims that their kitchen fire was caused by the fridge’s defective wiring, and the defendants claim that it was caused by the stovetop being left on. In cases where there is an absence of evidence the plaintiff has to show that the kind of harm experiences is the kind ordinarily caused by the defective product; and rule out other potential causes to a great degree. In this case, a fire is of the class of harm that is typical of faulty wiring; and the plaintiff’s expert reports ruled out other causes.

Strict yes - product warning example

Warning. The risk of not warning was that someone may use with modification and hurt themselves which happened in Liriano. Burden on defendant to disprove causation.

Strict (if no)

If it wasn’t the breach itself, you can’t hold the defendant liable.

Fault-based yes

You have to show that if the precaution had been taken, then the harm more likely than not would not have occurred. But-for the defendant’s negligence (the negligent aspect of the conduct must be the cause-in-fact), the plaintiff would not have been harmed. NC sticks with traditional but-for standard.

Fault-based yes (unlit stairs case)

Reynolds: The defendant slipped and fell down unlighted stairs. But-for the defendants negligence she more likely than not would not have fallen. Although she could have fallen if lit up, the defendant’s negligence greatly increased the chances of the accident occurring.

Fault-based yes (overdosage case)

Zuchowitz: Zuchowitz was instructed to take twice the maximum dosage of Danocrine, developed side effects and PPH (a rare lung disease) and died. The plaintiff’s experts pointed a temporal connection between her taking the dosage and her illness and ruled out other causes, establishing that more likely than not she would not have developed the illness but for the plaintiff’s negligence of overdosing her.

Fault-based no (life preserver case)

Grimstad: The defendant owed a duty of reasonable care, breached that duty by not having the life jackets, but it was not a cause in fact of the plaintiff’s harm. Even if the defendant had life preservers on board the plaintiff more likely than not would have still drowned.

Fault-based no (Cali exception - drowning)

Cali Exception. Haft: Father and son drowned in the defendant’s pool, which was required to have either a lifeguard or a sign, but had neither, nor was there any proof as to how they drowned. Plaintiff can’t prove if had the defendant done anything differently, the father and son would not have drowned; however, the court makes an exception, reasoning that the plaintiff doesn’t know because the defendant breached

Fault-based exception: Multiple Tortfeasors (Not All Known)

Kingston: Two fires, one caused by the defendant and the other caused by something unknown (but presumed to be of human cause) merged and destroyed the plaintiff’s property. The defendant’s fire is not a but-for cause, because even if the fire was not there, the unknown fire would’ve burnt down the plaintiff’s house. However, the plaintiff still wins, and the defendant is liable. The plaintiff still recovers when the other fire is presumed to have come from a living party.

Fault-based exception: Multiple Tortfeasors (All Known).

Tice: Two defendants shot near a plaintiff and it’s unknown who caused which injury. The court didn’t allow them to be joint because there were 2 separate injuries but they were still liable as the shots were the cause of the injury. Shot from whom? That’s on the defendants to work out but either way the plaintiff recovers.

Fault-based exception: Market Share Liability

Sindell: The Plaintiff’s mother took DES (a drug during pregnancy) which caused her harm, and she doesn’t know which company manufactured the one her mom took, so she sued 5 of the bigger of the 200 companies that could’ve made it. Each defendant is liable for the proportion represented by its share in the market unless they can show that they are not liable. This is only when there is an innocent plaintiff and many negligent defendants.