theme: Colin Fall 2022 autoscale: true slidenumbers: true header: #373737, alignment(left), line-height(150%), text-scale(1.0), ITC Galliard Pro Bold Footer:
Welcome to the Spring Semester!
—
Midterm Review
Semester Overview
Negligence — Causation —— Factual Causation —— Proximate Cause — Defenses —— Contributory & Comparative Negligence —— Assumption of Risk
Semester Overview
Strict Liability — Traditional view — Products liability —— Manufacturing defects —— Design defects —— Warnings —— Defenses
Semester Overview
Intentional Torts — Types of intentional tort — Defenses
Alternatives to Tort
Causation
Two parts:
- Factual cause
- Proximate cause
Factual causation is usually straightforward
Adams v. Bullock: “The Swinging Wire and Electric Trolley”
Martin v. Herzog: “The Buggy Without Lights”
Byrne v. Boadle: “The Falling Flour Barrel”
Reynolds v. Hicks: “Underage Drinking and Driving”
Stubbs v. City of Rochester
Two different tests for factual causation
- “But for”
- Substantial factor
California Jury Instructions
A substantial factor in causing harm is a factor that a reasonable person would consider to have contributed to the harm. It must be more than a remote or trivial factor. It does not have to be the only cause of the harm.
[Conduct is not a substantial factor in causing harm if the same harm would have occurred without that conduct.]
Zuchowicz v. United States
Four typical scenarios in which factual cause may be contested
- Toxic exposure
- No idea what happened
- Know what happened, but don’t know that it wouldn’t have happened if defendant had behaved reasonably
- Know what happened, but don’t know who to blame
