Deck 6: Negligence: Causation

Question 1

The rule requires a defendant to take the plaintiff as he finds him.

Answer 1

eggshell skull

Question 2

Judge Andrews's position regarding proximate cause parallels the direct causation rule.

Answer 2

True

Question 3

A plaintiff who is unable to prove which of several defendants caused the plaintiff's injuries will not be able to prove negligence.

Answer 3

False

Question 4

Some feel that the rule regarding proximate cause that evolved from Palsgraf could result in limitless liability.

Question 5

According to the Cardozo rule, a wrong should be defined in terms of the natural and probable.

Question 6

The question of proximate cause boils down to a question of .

Question 7

The plaintiff bears the burden of proving actual cause.

Question 8

The test is often used to determine actual causation in toxic tort cases.

Question 9

If a plaintiff is able to prove that one of two defendants, both of whom the plaintiff can show were negligent, caused the plaintiff's injuries, but is unable to prove which one, the plaintiff can turn to the theory, the theory, or the theory to prove actual causation.

Question 10

The "market-share liability" theory is particularly useful to plaintiffs in product liability cases.

Question 11

The concerted action theory is a theory plaintiffs often resort to when there are multiple defendants and causation is difficult to prove.

Question 12

According to , a duty is owed to those in the "zone of danger" while according to , a duty is owed to the world at large.

Question 13

The question of actual cause is a question of foreseeability.

Question 14

The theory allows medical malpractice plaintiffs to recover if they can show that the doctor's failure to diagnose contributed to their injuries.

Question 15

The concepts of duty and actual cause can be clearly distinguished from the concept of proximate cause.

Question 16

The substantial factor test is an alternative to the but-for test when proving proximate cause.

Question 17

An extension of the Cardozo rule is the "eggshell skull" rule.

Question 18

Proximate cause reflects a judicial concern that defendants' liability should be limited at some point.

Question 19

Under the test, a defendant is liable if the plaintiff would not have been injured if it had not been for the defendant's negligence. This test is broader than the test, which is used to prove causation when concurrent causes combine to produce a single, indivisible harm.

Question 20

Under the rule, a defendant is liable for all the consequences of his or her negligent acts no matter how unforeseeable those consequences may be.

Question 21

A defendant is not liable if the harm suffered by the plaintiff occurs in an unusual manner even if the harm is of the general type that made the defendant's conduct negligent.

Question 22

The foreseeable negligence of others is not considered a superseding cause.

Question 23

Describe one exception to the Palsgraf general rule.

Question 24

Intervening causes relieve defendants of liability.

Question 25

Under what circumstances might a plaintiff injured by a defective product use the market-share liability theory? How could this theory benefit the plaintiff?

Question 26

A defendant is never liable for harm that occurs to an unforeseeable plaintiff.

Question 27

Why is the direct causation rule criticized by some?

Question 28

Give an example of an intervening cause.

Question 29

If an unforeseeable intervening cause leads to the plaintiff's injury, the defendant will automatically be relieved of liability.

Question 30

Why was proximate cause an issue in Palsgraf?

Question 31

Why are some people critical of the but-for test?

Question 32

How might the question of superseding cause be involved in a case involving someone who injures another after being served liquor at a bar?

Question 33

What is the Cardozo position in reference to proximate cause?

Question 34

What is the Andrews position in reference to proximate cause?

Question 35

A third person's criminal conduct is always considered a superseding cause if such conduct results in injury to the plaintiff.

Question 36

What is the "lost chance of recovery" theory and why was it developed?

Question 37

The issue of proximate cause is a question of law for a judge to decide.

Question 38

Why do courts often use the substantial factor test rather than the but-for test in toxic tort cases?

Question 39

When does an intervening cause become a superseding cause?

Question 40

How does the substantial factor test differ from the but-for test?