100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 15 - 17 out of 102 pages.
oIssue = Whether a jury may consider and base its decision upon circumstantialevidence of causation when no direct evidence has been introduced.oA jury may consider and base its decision upon circumstantial evidence of causationwhen no direct evidence has been introduced.oA litigant may offer into evidence anything that would tend to prove, or is calculated toproduce a reasonable belief, that the facts are as he says they are. It is the jury’s dutyto weigh this and all of the evidence when making a decision. In the current matter, theevidence produced by Plaintiff is sufficiently calculated to produce a reasonable beliefthat the fire was caused by the sparks emanating from the mill’s chimney.ocourt says that circumstantial evidence are okay. Why ? Direct evidence depends of the credibility of the witness Most proof are circumstantial > it would not have been possible to treat somecases if they weren't taking into account. oThe P has only to prove that is more likely than not that the D had caused P's damage! oHypo: what if 2 mills side by side and we don't know who caused it? Then P loses ifthere is 50/50 bc he can't get over that. -Smith v. Rapid transit Inc (1945):oplaintiff claimed she was forced of the road by the defendant’s alleged bus, causing herto run into a parked car. oEvidence was introduced that showed it was possible for the bus to have belonged tothe defendant.oA proposition is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if it is made to appearmore likely or probable in the sense that actual belief in its truth, derived from theevidence, exists in the mind or minds of the tribunal notwithstanding any doubts thatmay still linger there.othere was no evidence showing the bus in question was owned by the Defendant.oThe bus in question could have been a bus owned by someone other than thedefendant. The Court noted that while the chances that the bus in question did belongto defendant, this was not enough to meet the required preponderance of the evidencestandard.-Why it is inaccurate to say that she had complete direct evidence? oShe doesn't know where the bus come from -How did she came around that ? oSchedule of the D oOnly bus that charter to go down main street -// w/ Hoyt. Why proof fails in this case? oIn Hoyt > there is no other D sending out spark oHere we say that we do not eliminate the possibility of other bus. Here the P can justsay that the D ran a bus but not that he ran a dangerous bus. We do not know if the Doperation was negligent. -Hypo (2 competitors > share market > share part of accidents) > Reluctance of court to relyonly on pure probability. What court would have want instead? oDirect testimony oP should tell a very detailed story (as in Hoyt) II)Alternative causation15
A)Alternative liability = when one of several D did it but we can’t tell which one. -it would be unfair to hold neither liable merely because direct causation could not beestablished.