Tort Outline FOR ACP - tort PDF

Preview

Summary

tort...

Description

Tort – Causation Outline 1. Actual Causation a. General Causation: is the D’s act the kind of act that could have resulted in P’s harm? i. i.e., did … cause …. ii. D’s do not raise general causation issues in these sorts of cases. b. Specific Causation: did the D’s act actually cause the P’s harm? i. i.e., assuming … can cause …, did … cause this P’s … ii. Can only occur once general causation questions have been answered in the affirmative. 2. Five Causation Issues (covered in course) a. The problem of uncertainty as to causation. b. Multiple defendants and causation of harm. c. Shifting burden of proof on causation from the P to the D or D’s. d. What evidence is necessary to prove causation in non-common-sense cases. 3. Did the D’s cause harm to the P’s? a. Hoyt v. Jeffers: i. Court held that Hoyt satisfied his burden of proof that Jeffers caused the fire. ii. Note that under this burden of proof, Hoyt had to present adequate evidence to prove that Jeffers did cause the fire, and he had to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence; not that it is more likely than not that Jeffers caused the fire. b. Smith v. Rapid Transit i. A proposition is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if it is made to appear more probable in the sense that the fact finder actually believes in its truth, notwithstanding any doubts the fact finder may still have. c. Direct v. Circumstantial Evidence 4. Cause In Fact Tests: a. But-for Test: it is a question of fact that requires proof that the injury would not have occurred "but for" D's conduct b. Substantial factor: imposes liability on culpable defendants whose conduct is one of two or more redundant causes of plaintiff’s injury. i. Sometimes used instead of but-for test c. Summers v. Tice: shifts the burden to defendants where there are two wrongdoers taking action at the same time. Rebuttable presumption on part of defendants. 5. Multiple D’s – Burden of Proof Shift a. Causation: Cause + Fault = Liability b. Summers: (A+B) fault and (A or B) cause = (A+B) prima facie liability c. Yabarra: (A or B or C or … N) fault and (A or B or C or … N) casue = (A+ B+C+N) prima facie liability 6. Concurrent Causation Causes a. Summers: i. 3 men go hunting, two men shot, and one bullet hit the third hunter, Summers (P).

b.

c.

d.

e.

ii. Both seem to have acted w/ same mental state. iii. In a case where parties acted together by agreement, they can be collectively liable even if only one of them caused the harm. iv. However, summers (P) could not have made this argument because in a concert of action, i.e., mutual agreement w/ D’s made through their actions (going hunting) w/ D’s. v. court shifts burden of proof to both defendants. This is an exception to general rule. They are both viewed as joint tortfeasors, and there is a rebuttable presumption Yabarra: i. CT rejected the concept of strict liability here – that once you showed that the D’s were collectively the only possible cause of harm suffered by the P, the D’s could be held strictly liable for the injury w/o the P having to prove negligence. ii. Why? – bc the several instrumentalities involved in the injury (nurses, doctors, admins) that produced the act and injury cannot be traced to one D or instrumentality, thus the doctrine of strict liability does not apply. iii. P did not produce direct evidence of negligence of D’s, but concluded that a jury might find one or more D’s negligent. iv. IN this case there are different D’s that have different likelihoods of liability unlike Summers where both defendants acted in identical ways. Indivisible injury i. D's conduct only needs to be part of a cause of P's harm, does not need to be the sole cause or even the major cause Divisible injury i. If D1 and D2 each cause separate parts of P's harm, they will only be held liable for the part that they caused if it is possible to determine who caused which part Concurrent but Independent i. D1 and D2 act independently so that either (but not both) was the cause in fact but P cannot prove which one it was - burden of proof is on each defendant to prove that he was not the cause

Tort– Negligence Outline 1. Elements: Plaintiff needs to prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence a. Duty – legal obligation that is owed to another i. The duty of care – reasonable person standard ii. i.e., physical disabilities, children, D acting during an emergency b. Breach of Duty - Violation of a legal or moral obligation; the failure to act as the law obligates c. Causation – i. Cause in fact- The cause without which the event could not have occurred. "But for" test ii. Proximate Cause - cause that is legally sufficient to result in liability, an act that is considered in law to result in a consequence so that liability can be imposed on the actor. aka legal cause 1. Key. Liable only for consequences of negligence that were reasonably foreseeable when he acted. d. Damages – Actual injury occurred, P can recover … i. Direct Loss ii. Economic Loss iii. Pain and Suffering 2. B...