Cause in fact is determined by the but for test But for the action the result

Cause in fact is determined by the but for test but

This preview shows page 16 - 18 out of 51 pages.

Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened.[1] For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.Hoyt v. Jeffers 1874 pg. 111Rule of LawA jury may consider and base its decision upon circumstantial evidence of causation when no direct evidence has been introduced.Facts16
Jeffers (defendant) owned and operated a saw mill that had a chimney from which sparks were seen to escape regularly. The mill was located near a hotel owned and operated by Hoyt (plaintiff). Hoyt’s hotel caughtfire and burned down. No one saw the fire begin or what caused the fireIssueMay a jury consider and base its decision upon circumstantial evidence of causation when no direct evidence has been introduced?Holding and Reasoning (Christiancy, J.)Yes.A litigant may offer into evidence anything that would tend to prove, or is calculated to produce a reasonable belief, that the facts are as he says they are. It is the jury’s duty to weigh this and all of the evidence when making a decision.Smith v. Rapid Transit, Inc. 1945 pg. 113Rule of LawA proposition is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if it is made to appear more probable in the sense that the fact finder actually believes in its truth, notwithstanding any doubts the fact finder may still have.FactsSmith brought suit against the defendant claiming that the bus that injured her belonged to Rapid. Rapidclaimed that it could have been a bus operated by someone else that caused the accident. Rapid was the only public franchise running a bus line on the street at the time accident occurred. IssueIs it proven by a preponderance of the evidence that a bus operated by a defendant was actually the bus that caused an accident if the defendant’s public bus lines was the only one operating on the street at the timeof the accident?Holding and Reasoning (Spalding, J.)No.A proposition is proved by a preponderance of the evidence if the fact finder actually believes in its truth, despite any doubts. Although the “mathematical chances somewhat favor” the contention that Rapid’s bus caused the accident, this is not sufficient to prove the proposition by a preponderance of the evidence. As a result, the directed verdict in favor of Rapid is affirmed.Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co. 1932 pg. 143Rule of LawOne can be held liable for negligence when it is possible that the decedent would have died from a diferent cause.FactsA 14-year-old boy and his friends often played on a public bridge, near which there were electrical wires. One afternoon, the boy fell and grabbed an electrical wire to stop himself from falling. The boy was killed by electrocution. Dillon (plaintiff) brought suit for wrongful death IssueCan one be held liable for negligence when it is possible that the decedent would have died from a different cause?

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture