This is an extract of our Actual Causation document, which we sell as part of our Tort Law Outlines collection written by the top tier of Oklahoma City University School Of Law students.
The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Tort Law Outlines. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:
1. Butfor Causation When a plaintiff's harm would have occurred even if the defendant had not acted negligently, then the defendant's negligent conduct did not "legally" cause the plaintiff's harm.
Defendant's negligent conduct must be a "but for" cause of the plaintiff's harm. Plaintiff must establish that "more probably than not" the defendants conduct was the "but for" cause of harm.
Higher degree of fault, more likely the court will let thin causation evidence go to jury.
2. Special Problems of Proof: Was the D's Conduct Capable of Causing the P's Harm?
Focus on quality of plaintiff's technical proof of defendant's conduct actually causing the harm. Did D's conduct have anything to do with the harm?
Most cases involve expert testimony to boost technical quality of evidence. Frye Test(bout 12 still use) Courts using Frye must determine if the method by which evidence was obtained was generally accepted by experts "in the particular field in which it belongs". If not, then not admissible. Daubert Test (med malpractice)(most common)(20 states adopted) Courts using Daubert "general acceptance" not necessary precondition to the admissibility of scientific evidence under Fed Rule of Evid. Inquiry must be solely on principles, and methodology, not on the conclusions they generate. Look at if: a) Theory in question can be (had or has been) tested b) Subjected to peer reviewpublication c) Known or potential error rate d) Existence and Maintenance of Standards Controlling its operation
Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Tort Law Outlines.