Factual Causation
In a product liability negligence lawsuit, the plaintiff must prove that they were owed a duty of care, which the defendant violated, directly causing personal injury or property damage. There are two pieces of this puzzle involving cause: factual causation and legal causation. Whether the damages to the consumer were in fact caused by the supplier’s breach lies in the evidence.
To determine if factual causation exists, a “but for” test is administered; it is decided but for the action, the outcome would not have occurred. For example, but for knocking over the candle, the fire would not have started. The test for factual causation is very strict; no matter how flagrant the breach of duty, the case will be thrown out if the claimant would have endured the same damages had the breach not happened.
A criminal conviction is permissible as evidence in civil trials that the defendant is liable for injury or damage inflicted upon the alleged victim. In all cases, it is the claimant’s obligation to verify that the damages were caused by the supplier’s negligence based on probability. In some instances, the plaintiff may be able to demonstrate that the ideal of res ipsa loquitur is relevant to the case, but even if it is, it does not affect the way in which evidence is viewed.
If factual causation is established, it is still crucial to portray legal causation. For this to occur, it is necessary to show that the damage is closely affiliated with the breach so that the defendant can still be held liable. It is not popular opinion among judges that a defendant should be responsible for damages that were totally unpredictable. However, the issue that has frustrated the judicial system is in the assessment of what amount of damage incurred by the claimant should be pinned on the defendant, assuming that some of it could have been anticipated.