Notes on Causation

4.01 The Conceptual Basis of Causation

• Causation requires a link between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury.

[A] But for Causation

• But for Test: Courts commonly use the “but for” test of causation which requires that the defendant's conduct or omission be connected to the plaintiff's harm.
• The jury's experience is used to determine if the defendant's wrongful conduct was a contributing factor in the harm, and without which the harm would not have occurred.
• Sowles v. Moore:
  • Facts: The plaintiff's horses drowned after running onto a frozen lake through an opening made by the defendant ice company. The jury found the opening was not properly guarded, but that proper guarding would not have prevented the drowning.
  • Rule: The plaintiff cannot recover if the defendant could not have prevented the accident with due care.
  • Holding: The court affirmed judgement for the defendant because the jury found that even a properly guarded opening wouldn't have prevented the horses from drowning and, as such, the failure to properly guard the opening was not a but-for cause of the horses' deaths.
• New York Central R.R. Co. v. Grimstad:
  • Facts: The plaintiff's husband drowned after falling off a barge without life-preservers. The jury found the defendant negligent in not equipping the barge with life-preservers.
  • Rule: The court reversed judgement for the plaintiff because they found that the jury would have to engage in speculation to find that the failure to provide life-preservers was the cause of the man's drowning.
    • The court found that there was not enough proof to establish a causal connection between the absence of a life buoy and the drowning, noting multiple points of potential failure for the life buoy to save Grimstad, each of which would have to be true for the absence of a life buoy to be the but-for cause of the drowning.
• Rule of Causation: Injury and negligence must concur, and the defendant's due care have prevented the accident.
• Analytical Process: Requires analysis of a hypothetical situation. Must know certain facts before undertaking such analysis.
• Hypothetical analysis: Requires imagining what would have happened had the defendant acted differently.
• Producing Facts: The plaintiff has the job of producing relevant facts as evidence in court.
• Cause-in-Fact Element: A required element for a negligence case.
• To show negligence the cause of harm must not be the defendant's conduct, but the defendant's negligent conduct.
• Distinguish between the defendant's negligent conduct and resulting harm (e.g., failing to provide suitable guards) -- as distinct from merely