M4: Intro to Causation

A defendant's liability for damages does not automatically follow from a breach for duty that leads to a plaintiff's harm.
The law of negligence mandates a specific connection between the breach committed by the defendant and the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
This mandatory connection is formally defined as causation.

Causation is not only a requirement for negligence; it is also an implicit and unstated requirement for intentional torts.
Specificity of Liabilty in Voluntary Acts: A defendant who intends an offensive contact on a plaintiff is only held liable when the defendant's voluntary act causes the offensive contact to occur.
The Principle of Confinement: When a defendant intentionally locks a plaintiff in a room that lacks any reasonable means of escape, that specific conduct is the cause of the confinement.

Within the legal framework of negligence, the requirement of causation is divided into two distinct types: - 1. Actual Causation - 2. Proximate Causation
Evidence and Burden of Proof: To prevail in a negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must successfully prove both actual causation and proximate causation.

The analysis of causation must follow a strict sequential order: - Actual causation is always analyzed before proximate causation.
The progression of the legal inquiry is conditional: - If and only if the analysis confirms the existence of actual causation does the evaluator proceed to analyze proximate causation.
This relationship can be expressed logically as: - $\text{Actual Causation} \iff \text{Proceed to Proximate Causation Analysis}$

For a plaintiff to win a negligence lawsuit, the following condition must be met regarding causation: - $\text{Plaintiff Win} \rightarrow (\text{Actual Causation} \land \text{Proximate Causation})$