Negligence: Palsgraf - Causation: Cause & Proximate Cause MUST READ

Causation – the Third Element of Negligence is a complex relationship between two concepts: Cause in Fact and Proximate Cause. Read this information to supplement your textual reading on Causation. The Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. case is the seminal (groundbreaking) case in regard to these concepts and both the majority decision written by Justice Cardoza and the dissenting opinion written by Justice Andrews is often quoted.

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-causation/

What is "causation"?

“Causation,” in a personal injury case, makes the crucial link between a person or company’s behavior and another person’s injury. Even if a defendant in a negligence case is horribly careless or reckless, he cannot be held liable for injuring the plaintiff unless his negligent behavior caused the injury.

In order to “cause” an injury, a particular action, condition, or thing does not have to be the sole reason the injury occurred. Rather, a particular cause only has to be a “substantial factor” in creating or worsening the injury.

In most torts cases, causation can be broken down into two different types: cause in fact and proximate cause. The cause in fact of an injury is the one that, if it had not happened, the injury would not have happened either. A court looking for a cause in fact asks, “If this event did not happen, would the plaintiff have been injured?”

If the court determines that a particular cause was the cause in fact of an injury, it then asks whether that same cause was also a proximate cause. Proximate cause asks whether the injury was foreseeable. Even if a defendant‘s action was the “but-for” cause of a plaintiff’s injury, the defendant may not be liable for damages if his action was so far removed from the injury that he could not have foreseen that his action would cause that kind of harm.

The famous torts case that explains the difference between cause in fact and proximate cause is Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. In this case, a man ran across a train platform to catch a train. He was carrying a package. As he approached the train, it began to move, so at the last second the man tried to leap aboard the train. As he was trying to get onto the train, two Long Island railroad guards, one on the train itself and one on the train platform, pushed and pulled the man, trying to make sure he landed securely on the train.

As the railroad guards jostled the man, he dropped his package, which happened to be full of fireworks. The fireworks exploded, panicking the crowd on the platform. A panicking crowd member pushed against a heavy set of scales. The scales fell over onto Mrs. Palsgraf, injuring her. Mrs. Palsgraf sued the railroad, claiming that the negligence of the railroad guards in pushing the man onto the train caused her injuries.

The court found that cause in fact existed, because if the package had not been dropped, its exploding contents would not have scared the bystander into pushing the scales so they fell on Mrs. Palsgraf. However, the court held that proximate cause did not exist, because there was no way that the railroad guards could have foreseen that Mrs. Palsgraf would be hit by falling scales if they pushed a man trying to get onto the train at the opposite end of the train platform.

In a standard negligence case, proving causation is only one step in proving that a defendant is liable for a plaintiff’s injuries. Proving a negligence case also requires evidence that the defendant had a duty of care to the plaintiff, that he breached that duty, and that the breach caused the plaintiff’s injuries, which can be righted by the defendant paying damages to the plaintiff.

In some types of personal injury cases, however, causation is the center of the case. For instance, in a strict liability case like those involving products liability or ultrahazardous activities, the plaintiff only needs to prove that the harmful behavior or product caused her injuries.

http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-proximate-cause/

What is "proximate cause"?

In order to win a personal injury case, the injured person must show that his injury was caused by the defendant’s negligence. When deciding whether the defendant’s acts caused the plaintiff’s injury, the court asks two questions: whether the defendant’s act was the cause in fact of the injury, and whether the defendant’s act was the proximate cause or legal cause of the injury.

Proximate Cause

Determining proximate cause is necessary because not everyone or everything that causes an injury is legally liable. For instance, suppose a driver loses control on an icy road and crashes his car, getting injured in the accident. The ice on the road is the cause in fact or “but-for” cause of the accident: but for the ice, the driver would not have crashed and been injured. However, the ice cannot be held liable for the accident: It cannot be sued and cannot pay damages. Courts use proximate cause to determine whether the cause in fact of an accident can be held liable.

In most torts cases, proximate cause is a question of foreseeability. If the particular injury that resulted was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct, then proximate cause exists. Courts ask the question, “Was the injury foreseeable?” in many ways, including:

Was the type of harm foreseeable? In most cases, a defendant will be held liable for all the direct consequences of his actions as long as some part of the harm is foreseeable. Also, the defendant may be liable even if the injury that occurred was unlikely, as long as a reasonable person would have taken steps to prevent that kind of injury from occurring.
Was the manner of harm foreseeable? Usually, if the plaintiff’s injury is the type that might be reasonably foreseen, the way in which the injury actually occurs does not have to be foreseeable.
Was the extent of the harm foreseeable? This question often involves the eggshell plaintiff rule. In most cases, the defendant will be liable even if the injury is much more severe than he would have expected.

Finally, courts looking at proximate cause will ask whether the plaintiff herself is among the people the defendant could have reasonably foreseen would be injured by his actions.

For instance, consider the famous New York case Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad. In Palsgraf, Mrs. Palsgraf was standing at one end of a long train platform. At the other end of the platform, a man was running to board a train. As the train began to move, the man leapt onboard, but had trouble balancing. A railroad employee on the train and another railroad employee on the platform pushed and pulled at the man, trying to get him onto the train.

As it happened, the man was carrying a package of fireworks, which fell out of his hands as the railroad workers jostled him and exploded when it hit the ground. The exploding fireworks scared the crowd on the platform, and one person in the crowd tipped over a heavy set of scales. The scales landed on Mrs. Palsgraf and injured her. Mrs. Palsgraf sued the railroad, claiming the railroad workers were negligent by jostling the man with the fireworks, which resulted in her being injured by the falling scales.

The court, however, disagreed with Mrs. Palsgraf. It held that proximate cause did not exist because the railroad workers would not reasonably have foreseen that Mrs. Palsgraf was one of the people that would be hurt if they tried to push or pull a passenger onto the train. Without proximate cause, Mrs. Palsgraf could not hold the railroad liable for negligence. This rule is sometimes known as the “harm within the risk” or HWR rule.

A handful of U.S. courts do not apply the foreseeable person test used in Palsgraf. Instead, these courts use a “direct consequences” analysis. The direct consequences rule states that a defendant who starts a chain of events is liable for the injuries of anyone who suffers injury from that chain of events, as long as the chain is not broken by an intervening or superseding cause.