Liability Issues - Understanding the Concept of Causation
Most people seem to have a general understanding of how the court system works in civil cases until things enter the courtroom. Most movies and television shows tend to focus on the drama of the situation, but few focus on what exactly is trying to be achieved. There are different things that need to be addressed. In this article, we take a look at the concept of legal causation.
Every civil litigation case requires that the suing party, called the plaintiff, prove certain elements before they are allowed to recover damages. The most common lawsuit is based on a claim of negligence. In such a case, the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to act in a particular way, breached that duty, said breach caused injury to the plaintiff and the monetary values of the damages.
Causation can often seem basic at first, but it can be fairly complex in real life court situations. Let's consider an example. I am having surgery and wake up with bad side effects. I sue for medical malpractice. I show the doctor has a duty to perform competently and breached that duty. He did this by using the incorrect surgical procedure when operating on me. This, I argue, caused my subsequent pain and incapacity.
In response, the doctor's lawyer admits that the wrong procedure was used. Having stated as much, he then argues that the incorrect procedure, however, did not cause the pain I am suffering. If it had, he argues, I would be experiencing one of two types of discomfort. Since I have something completely different, it could not be the procedure. Simply put, the doctor's breach did not cause my injuries. If the jury agrees, I am barred from recovering damages.
This scenario is much more common than the drama you see in movies and television. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove all elements of the asserted claim. The defendant doesn't have to do anything until those burdens are met. Instead of fighting all elements of the claim, most defense lawyers will focus on one or two elements and try to convince the jury the plaintiff has not met its burden of proof. If the lawyer is successful, he wins. Causation is one of the elements that is often attacked.
Every civil litigation case requires that the suing party, called the plaintiff, prove certain elements before they are allowed to recover damages. The most common lawsuit is based on a claim of negligence. In such a case, the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to act in a particular way, breached that duty, said breach caused injury to the plaintiff and the monetary values of the damages.
Causation can often seem basic at first, but it can be fairly complex in real life court situations. Let's consider an example. I am having surgery and wake up with bad side effects. I sue for medical malpractice. I show the doctor has a duty to perform competently and breached that duty. He did this by using the incorrect surgical procedure when operating on me. This, I argue, caused my subsequent pain and incapacity.
In response, the doctor's lawyer admits that the wrong procedure was used. Having stated as much, he then argues that the incorrect procedure, however, did not cause the pain I am suffering. If it had, he argues, I would be experiencing one of two types of discomfort. Since I have something completely different, it could not be the procedure. Simply put, the doctor's breach did not cause my injuries. If the jury agrees, I am barred from recovering damages.
This scenario is much more common than the drama you see in movies and television. The burden is on the plaintiff to prove all elements of the asserted claim. The defendant doesn't have to do anything until those burdens are met. Instead of fighting all elements of the claim, most defense lawyers will focus on one or two elements and try to convince the jury the plaintiff has not met its burden of proof. If the lawyer is successful, he wins. Causation is one of the elements that is often attacked.