Causation in Law Quiz

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is required to prove causation statistically under Daubert?

The rate of injury must be less than the background rate.

The rate of injury must be more than two times the background rate. (correct)

The rate of injury must be at least five times the background rate.

The rate of injury must be equal to the background rate.

Which of the following is NOT a criterion for the scientific validity of expert testimony according to Daubert?

It should be generally accepted in the scientific community.

It must be tested and published in reputable journals.

It should be based on anecdotal evidence and personal experience. (correct)

It must produce results within a predetermined error margin.

What must be proven regarding the accused in a legal case involving causation?

The accused must be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

The accused was the sole cause of the injury.

The accused must have caused the injury independently.

The accused caused the injury without independent factors. (correct)

In cases of dependent concurrent causes, what is the liability status for each party involved?

Each party can be held liable even if their negligence alone could not cause the injury. Signup and view all the answers

What aspect of expert testimony is evaluated concerning its relevance in a legal case?

How well it fits with the specifics of the case. Signup and view all the answers

What must a defendant's conduct satisfy to be considered a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury?

It must be a necessary condition directly causing the injury. Signup and view all the answers

Which test is commonly used to establish 'cause in fact' in negligence cases?

'But for' Test Signup and view all the answers

Under what circumstance can a defendant still be held liable even if the injury would have occurred without their action?

If their action was a substantial factor in causing the harm. Signup and view all the answers

What does 'negligence in the air is not negligence' refer to?

Speculative claims that cannot be supported by evidence. Signup and view all the answers

Which doctrine might extend liability for negligence when a person's failure to act increases the risk of harm to another?

Loss of Chance Doctrine Signup and view all the answers

What is required of the plaintiff to meet the burden of proof regarding causation in a negligence case?

More likely than not that the wrongful act caused harm. Signup and view all the answers

What does the Frye Rule establish about the admissibility of scientific evidence?

Scientific evidence must have gained acceptance in its field. Signup and view all the answers

Which legal principle emphasizes that it is the proximate cause that is considered in law, not the remote cause?

In jure non remota causa, sed proxima, spectura Signup and view all the answers

Study Notes

Cause in Fact (But For)

Establishing causation requires demonstrating a "but for" relationship. The defendant's actions must be a necessary condition for the plaintiff's injury, meaning the injury wouldn't have occurred without them.
The "but for" test asks: If not for the defendant's actions, would the injury have occurred?
Cardozo's concept of "negligence in the air" highlights that negligence must directly cause the injury, not just be present.
The "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy (after this, therefore because of this) is a common error in causation analysis; it assumes a correlation implies causation.

Substantial Factor Causation

If harm would have occurred in any event, but the defendant's actions were a "substantial factor" contributing to the harm, they can be held liable. It is sufficient that the challenged act is one "substantial factor" in bringing about the harm.
Example: two fires merging to cause damage; both fire starters are liable as both were substantial factors.

Loss of Chance Doctrine

This doctrine primarily applies to medical malpractice. If a medical professional's negligence reduces the plaintiff's chance of a favorable outcome, they may be liable.

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause in law focuses on the foreseeable consequences of an act.

Burden of Proof: Causation

The plaintiff has the burden of proving causation, by showing it is more likely than not that the defendant's actions caused the harm.
Speculation is insufficient; probabilities alone do not establish causation.

Admissibility of Scientific Evidence

The Frye standard (1923) required scientific evidence to have "gained general acceptance" in its field.
Federal Rule of Evidence 702 establishes guidelines for expert testimony, focusing on relevance, methodology, and reliability.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow shifted the focus from general acceptance to assessing scientific validity. Courts should consider factors like peer review, testability, error rates, and general acceptance.
A plaintiff must show that a rate of injury caused by the defendant is more than twice the background rate for a statistically significant assertion of causation under Daubert.

Concurrent Causes

Dependent: When multiple causes work together to create an injury; each party contributing can be liable for the totality of harm.
Independent: When multiple causes, not necessarily linked, combine to create an injury; all contributing parties can be held liable. Each independent cause need not be the sole "but for" cause, but rather, merely a substantial factor in the outcome.

Studying That Suits You

Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

Description

Test your understanding of the concepts of causation in law, including the 'but for' test and substantial factor causation. Explore how these principles relate to establishing liability and the common pitfalls in causation analysis. Ideal for those studying legal principles related to negligence.