V. Torts
C. Causation
1. Causation
criteria
Criterion 2
proximate cause
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Company, 248 N.Y. 339 (1928) -- summary comments
Controversial:
Friedman thinks it illustrates an "implausible chain of
causation"
Symmetry test handout
if you
are negligent and do not have to pay for the actual but unforeseeable damages that do
occur, should you pay for the foreseeable expected damages that do not occur?
It can be costly to estimate
and collect on expected damages that don't happen, since the court would have to
examine counterfactual outcomes
But can also be costly to allow defendants to escape from paying damages
that do occur since you create an extra issue to decide in every case in which
negligence is actually found:
Which damages are foreseeable enough to be paid and which are
too remote?
It is now
standard practice everywhere for railway employees to discourage running on platforms
Scales are also located away from passenger areas
Logically, the Palsgraf decision itself did not provide the incentives for these adjustments.
Criterion 3: foreseeability
Blyth v. Birmingham Waterworks, 11 Exch. 781, 156 Eng. Rep. 1047 (1856)
foreseeability => a functional relationship exists between cause and effect
foreseeable => a reasonable person could anticipate the harm that can result from their action
case illustrates lack of negligence--the water company had taken reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm; the actual event was too remote to be considered froeseeable.
"The
defendants had provided against such frosts as experience would have led men,
acting prudently, to provide against; and they are not guilty of negligence,
because their precautions proved insufficient against the effects of the extreme
severity of the frost of 1855, which penetrated to a greater depth than any
which ordinarily occurs south of the polar regions.
"Such a state of circumstances constitutes a contingency
against which no reasonable man can provide. The result was an accident, for
which the defendants cannot be held liable..."
Adams v. Bullock, 227 N.Y. 208, 125 N.E. 93 (1919)
producers are not insurers--that's not what the tort system is best suited for
foreseeability in these cases is used for a different purpose than in Palsgraf
|
what does unforeseeable mean?
Meaning 1: information costs are too high to make it efficient to discover the unforeseeable harm (Posner) Both Birmingham
and Bullock passed the negligence test. => total loss is at least as high as foreseeable loss |
 |
 |
Meaning 2: The
size of the actual loss (L) is stochastic
agents base efficiency
of safeguards on expected loss; the particular loss of each specific event is
not precisely foreseeable, but the size of the average loss is.
=> it is logically consistent to use foreseeable harm to decide whether negligence has occurred and then actual harm to determine case-specific damages
In Palsgraf, the court
accepted that the defendant was negligent, acting inefficiently with respect to
foreseeable harm.
The court ruled that even though negligent, not responsible for the
harms that result unless they were foreseeable
--this caps liability and gives it a downward bias.
2. The boundaries of causation
cover case before labeling
a. Coincidental causation
Berry v. The Bourough of Sugar Notch, 191 Pa. 345 , 43 A. 240 (1899)
Illustrates coincidental causation
association is not causation
cover case before labeling
b. Redundant causation
Kingston v. Chicago & N. W. Ry. Co. 211 N.W. 913 (1927)
Illustrates redundant causation
2
competing doctrines here:
doctrine of cause-in-fact = the but for test:
places the burden of proof on the plaintiff to show that the damage would not
have without the defendant's action
this case fails that test
doctrine of multiple sufficient causes: defendants must prove that at least one
cause was not negligent
this prevents multiple tort-feasors from escaping liability