{"id":40,"date":"2019-12-03T00:43:19","date_gmt":"2019-12-03T00:43:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/ny-personal-injury-law\/?post_type=chapter&p=40"},"modified":"2019-12-03T00:43:19","modified_gmt":"2019-12-03T00:43:19","slug":"causation-and-eggshell-theory","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/ny-personal-injury-law\/chapter\/causation-and-eggshell-theory\/","title":{"raw":"Causation and Eggshell Theory","rendered":"Causation and Eggshell Theory"},"content":{"raw":"CAUSATION:<\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe third element of negligence is causation. There are two types of negligent causation, actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause is sometimes referred to as cause in fact. It means that \u201cbut for\u201d the negligent act or omission of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. This is known as the \u201cbut for\u201d test. For example, driver A is passing through an intersection with a green light. Driver B runs the red light and strikes driver A\u2019s vehicle and injures driver A. Clearly, \u201cbut for\u201c the running of the red light by driver B, driver A\u2019s vehicle would not have been struck by driver B, and drive A would not have been harmed.\r\n\r\nThe second type of negligent causation is proximate cause. Proximate cause requires the natural, direct, and uninterrupted consequence of a negligent act or omission to be the cause of a plaintiff\u2019s injury. Proximate cause also requires foreseeability. It must be foreseeable as to the result, and also as to the plaintiff. If the result is too remote, too far removed, or too unusual from the defendant\u2019s act or omission so as to make them unforeseeable, then the defendant is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff\u2019s harm.\r\n\r\nFor example, driver A is speeding. A squirrel runs in front of driver A\u2019s car so driver A swerves, and because of the high rate of speed of which he is traveling, loses control of his vehicle and hits a mailbox. The mailbox flies so violently up in the air from the impact that it hits an overhead powerline. The force of the mailbox hitting the powerline forces the powerline to break off the utility pole onto the sidewalk where it is still electrified. A pedestrian approaching the scene steps on the powerline and is injured by the live powerline. A jury may find that driver A\u2019s actions are not the proximate cause of the pedestrian\u2019s injuries, because the resulting harm is so remote and so unusual as to render them unforeseeable.\r\n\r\nEggshell theory: <\/strong>\r\n\r\nThe \u201ceggshell theory\u201d is the legal doctrine regarding causation that a tortfeasor takes their victim as they find them. So, if a plaintiff is more severely harmed than a normal person because of a preexisting condition, the defendant will still be held as the cause of the harm. For example, let\u2019s say our plaintiff has a blood disorder that causes her to bleed and bruise more easily than most people. The plaintiff\u2019s injuries due to an automobile accident caused by the defendant are far more severe than would be expected from the low impact of the accident. In fact, most normal people would have been able to just walk away from the accident with no harm. However, the plaintiff was required to receive blood transfusions and remain in the hospital for two weeks as a result of this accident. Under the eggshell theory, the defendant\u2019s actions would still be the cause of the harm to the plaintiff even though the results were not foreseeable.\r\n\r\n ","rendered":"

CAUSATION:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The third element of negligence is causation. There are two types of negligent causation, actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause is sometimes referred to as cause in fact. It means that \u201cbut for\u201d the negligent act or omission of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. This is known as the \u201cbut for\u201d test. For example, driver A is passing through an intersection with a green light. Driver B runs the red light and strikes driver A\u2019s vehicle and injures driver A. Clearly, \u201cbut for\u201c the running of the red light by driver B, driver A\u2019s vehicle would not have been struck by driver B, and drive A would not have been harmed.<\/p>\n

The second type of negligent causation is proximate cause. Proximate cause requires the natural, direct, and uninterrupted consequence of a negligent act or omission to be the cause of a plaintiff\u2019s injury. Proximate cause also requires foreseeability. It must be foreseeable as to the result, and also as to the plaintiff. If the result is too remote, too far removed, or too unusual from the defendant\u2019s act or omission so as to make them unforeseeable, then the defendant is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff\u2019s harm.<\/p>\n

For example, driver A is speeding. A squirrel runs in front of driver A\u2019s car so driver A swerves, and because of the high rate of speed of which he is traveling, loses control of his vehicle and hits a mailbox. The mailbox flies so violently up in the air from the impact that it hits an overhead powerline. The force of the mailbox hitting the powerline forces the powerline to break off the utility pole onto the sidewalk where it is still electrified. A pedestrian approaching the scene steps on the powerline and is injured by the live powerline. A jury may find that driver A\u2019s actions are not the proximate cause of the pedestrian\u2019s injuries, because the resulting harm is so remote and so unusual as to render them unforeseeable.<\/p>\n

Eggshell theory: <\/strong><\/p>\n

The \u201ceggshell theory\u201d is the legal doctrine regarding causation that a tortfeasor takes their victim as they find them. So, if a plaintiff is more severely harmed than a normal person because of a preexisting condition, the defendant will still be held as the cause of the harm. For example, let\u2019s say our plaintiff has a blood disorder that causes her to bleed and bruise more easily than most people. The plaintiff\u2019s injuries due to an automobile accident caused by the defendant are far more severe than would be expected from the low impact of the accident. In fact, most normal people would have been able to just walk away from the accident with no harm. However, the plaintiff was required to receive blood transfusions and remain in the hospital for two weeks as a result of this accident. Under the eggshell theory, the defendant\u2019s actions would still be the cause of the harm to the plaintiff even though the results were not foreseeable.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n\n\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t

Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CC licensed content, Original<\/div>