Causation - Satz PDF

Preview

Summary

Satz...

Description

Satz Law 550 09/22/20 Pre-Class Notes  Quiz will be posted around Wednesday; Professor Satz asked the publisher to tweak some of the questions.  Satz believes our exam will be on the 20 th, but no guarantees! Schedule should be published this week Causation Causation Take-Away Points  One needs BOTH actual and proximate causation to establish element of causation in torts negligence Muckler v Buchl  MATERIAL FACTS: Decedent is 55 years old, fell down a flight of stairs in her own apartment complex. She broke her hip and ultimately died a few months later. The plaintiff blamed the injury and death on the dim lighting on the stairs. A witness, who was a guest of the plaintiff, said she had to feel around for the banister to make her way down, heard a crash behind her. Electrical engineer said the lighting was well below standard. Defendant was exclusively in control of the lighting situation.  PROCEDURE: Jury wants to believe her and decides in favor of plaintiff. Supreme Court says the evidence is consistent with the theory that she fell because of darkness. It’s also consistent with the theory that the fall would’ve occurred regardless. (But we don’t have to disprove other possibilities – only prove more than a 50% chance that the carelessness caused the injury!) Butts v Weisz  MATERIAL FACTS: Butts were quickly shown around the house. Butts husband was trying to go to the bathroom. He was close in proximity but couldn’t get through the way he was trying to go. He falls down the stairs.  PROCEDURE: Expert testimony tries to allege he may have been reaching for the light switch. Comes to court on a motion for summary judgment and court will not allow expert to testify on whether he was reaching for the light switch, because it’s entirely speculative. Architect is not qualified to speculate about whether decedent was reaching for light switch. (p242) Court takes the causation claim away from jury and moves for summary judgment in favor of the defendant.  REASONING: Court says it is less likely (theory NOT AS GOOD) that plaintiff was reaching for light switch. Jones v LA Fitness

 



MATERIAL FACTS: Plaintiff falls into an unpadded part of the wall. PROCEDURE: Plaintiff’s expert witness could testify about industry standard for basketball courts, not allowed to discuss what he thinks was the cause of the injury. Defense points out expert’s testimony of what the standard was doesn’t mean the conditions were unsafe per se. Willing to allow case to go before jury despite restricting expert testimony. (Middle-ground case!)

Page 244: Summary of legal standard for expert testimony under 702 and Dahbert rule. Plaintiff-Friendly Causation Rules (note 3, p249)  1) Judicial treatment of statistical probability that lowers burden of production o Kallenberg – Court upheld jury verdict even though it acknowledged plaintiff’s own expert testified proper treatment would have given “20, 30, 40 percent chance of survival”; does not relieve plaintiff of persuading factfinder that D’s conduct was probably necessary [>50% chance]  2) Judicial decisions that lower burden of persuasion based on increased risk of plaintiff being injured o Hamil & Herskovitz – can add factors together to find actual causation o Beswick v City of Philadelphia – man having heart attack called 911 and operator tries to direct him to third party ambulance company, delays help reaching him. When county ambulance finally reaches him, doesn’t have the right equipment. Increased risk + delay + wrong equipment; can add all these things together to find actual causation even if no single action would bring you to 50% threshold.  3) Presuming change of P’s conduct if more information was supplied o Ute Citizens - similar logic to informed consent  4) Loss of chance doctrine Substantial factors: refines but doesn’t replace the but-for test Take-Away Points for Loss of Chance  Loss of chance involves breach of duty not to reduce chances of avoiding death or (serious) bodily harm. (Some jurisdictions do not extend LOC outside of death)  Damages typically reduced to percentage chance of which plaintiff was deprived  Plaintiff must prove it was more probable than not that loss of chance occurred  May be re-framed as actual cause cases  Frequently used in medical malpractice

2

Falcon v Memorial Hospital  MATERIAL FACTS: Moments after giving birth, P’s granddaughter has an embolism. There’s a medical practice that can reduce the chance of death by 37.5% in event of embolism by prior insertion of intravenous line prior to onset of embolism, but they didn’t do this.  PROCEDURE: Court goes through several possible judicial approaches trying to figure out how to use the loss of chance doctrine. (p.252-253) o (1) Disallowing unless they can show plaintiff wouldn’t have suffered harm if not for negligence o (2) Permitting recovery on showing loss of opportunity was substantial albeit 50% or less chance o (3) Permitting recovery for substantial factor in producing physical harm o (4) Permitting recovery ambiguously  After we’ve lowered burden of persuasion using substantial factor, NOW we must prove that loss of chance itself is more probable than not.  Majority cites the whole point of going to the doctor for birthing as to reduce chances of death, so custom is considered!  Dissent: loss of chance has no deterrent effect on physician behavior (physicians already do whatever they can); tips the balance too far and provides unfair and unique burden on physicians  Note 3, p.259 - This holding was overturned, statute passed 3 years later saying Plaintiff cannot recover for opportunity to achieve better result if the opportunity is less than 50%. Multiple Necessary (MN) & Multiple Sufficient (MS) Cause Take-Away Points  When two or more careless acts function as necessary condition of injury (multiple necessary), each act is deemed actual cause of that injury (McDonald v Robinson) o If either of two drivers hadn’t been driving that day, McDonald wouldn’t have been harmed  When each of two or more careless acts would itself have generated an injury, each act deemed to be actual cause (even though no but-for causation) o We can take out all but one defendant and still have harm o Common in environmental torts  Toxic torts involve difficult to define correlations between exposure and diseases and do not cleanly fit into any extant model of actual causation (general causation to harm linkage and link to Plaintiff are often difficult to establish)  Experts must satisfy reliability component of Daubert

3

 

First Defendant may be viewed as an actual cause of injury for doomed plaintiffs in situations of preempted cause Alternative Causation (Burden-shifting causation) o When one of two careless actors caused injury and neither is independently more probable than not, burden shifts to defendant to prove they did not cause plaintiff’s injury; either defendant may be liable for the whole damage. o May only apply to multiple defendants. One extension is market share liability, where each known defendant is liable for their market share percentage of damages.

McDonald v Robinson  MATERIAL FACTS: Westbound driver (Robinson) hits Northbound driver (Padzensky) collide and become interlocked. They slide northwest and hit plaintiff, McDonald.  PROCEDURE: Lower court finds joint and several liabilility; could sue one individually or sue both and collect from both defendants.

4...