Causation under Torts Law
Causation Under Tort Law
Overview
In tort law, causation is a crucial element that links a defendant’s wrongful conduct to the plaintiff’s injury. Establishing causation means showing that the defendant’s actions actually caused the harm suffered.
Causation has two main components:
Factual Causation (Cause-in-fact)
Legal Causation (Proximate Cause)
Both must be established for a plaintiff to succeed in a negligence or other tort claim.
1. Factual Causation (Cause-in-Fact)
This asks: “But for the defendant’s conduct, would the harm have occurred?”
The test is often called the “but-for” test.
Example:
If but for the defendant’s careless driving, the plaintiff would not have been injured, factual causation is established.
Case: But-for Test
In cases where a single defendant’s conduct clearly causes harm, the but-for test is straightforward.
However, when multiple causes or parties are involved, causation can be more complex.
2. Legal Causation (Proximate Cause)
Even if factual causation is established, the defendant is only liable for harms that are legally foreseeable consequences of their conduct.
Proximate cause limits liability to those harms reasonably connected to the defendant’s actions.
It answers the question: “Is it fair or just to hold the defendant responsible for this harm?”
Key Concepts in Proximate Cause:
Foreseeability: The harm must be a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct.
Directness: There should be an unbroken chain of events from the defendant’s act to the injury.
Intervening and Superseding Causes: Events occurring after the defendant’s conduct that contribute to the harm can affect liability.
Intervening causes: Occur after the defendant’s act but do not break the causal chain if they are foreseeable.
Superseding causes: Unforeseeable events that break the chain and relieve the defendant of liability.
Important Case Law
1. Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)
Facts: A man carrying a package attempted to board a moving train; railroad employees helped him, causing the package to fall and explode. The shock caused scales to fall and injure Mrs. Palsgraf, who sued the railroad for negligence.
Holding: The court ruled that the railroad was not liable because Mrs. Palsgraf’s injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the employees' actions.
Significance: Established the principle that liability depends on foreseeability and proximate cause.
2. Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee (1969)
Facts: A man was poisoned and went to the hospital but was sent home. He died later from arsenic poisoning. The family sued for negligence.
Holding: The hospital’s negligence was not the factual cause of death because even with treatment, the man would have died.
Significance: Demonstrates the importance of factual causation; without it, there is no liability.
3. Summers v. Tice (1948)
Facts: Two hunters negligently fired shots, and the plaintiff was hit by one of the shots but could not prove which one.
Holding: The court shifted the burden of proof to the defendants to show which one caused the injury, or both would be liable.
Significance: Recognizes alternative liability when multiple defendants act negligently but it’s unclear who caused the harm.
4. Wagon Mound No. 1 (Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v. Morts Dock & Engineering Co. Ltd) (1961)
Facts: Oil spilled from a ship, and sparks caused a fire that damaged a wharf.
Holding: The court held that the defendant was liable only for damages that were foreseeable; since fire was foreseeable, liability attached.
Significance: Emphasized foreseeability as the key test for proximate cause.
Special Tests and Doctrines
Substantial Factor Test: Used when multiple causes contribute to harm; if a defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor, causation is established.
Loss of Chance Doctrine: In medical malpractice, recognizes a plaintiff’s loss of a chance of recovery as actionable harm even if death was not certain.
Summary
| Element | Description | Test/Standard |
|---|---|---|
| Factual Causation | Defendant’s act actually caused the harm | But-for test, substantial factor test |
| Legal Causation | Harm is a foreseeable and direct consequence of defendant’s act | Foreseeability, proximate cause |
| Intervening Cause | Event after defendant’s act affecting causation | Does not break chain if foreseeable |
| Superseding Cause | Unforeseeable event breaking causal chain | Relieves defendant of liability |
Conclusion
Causation is a two-step inquiry requiring:
Proof that the defendant’s conduct was the actual cause of the plaintiff’s injury.
The harm was a foreseeable and legally proximate consequence of that conduct.
Without both, liability in tort generally cannot be established.
RELATED Blog
0 comments