Questions:
TQ 4.1: What does it mean to say that the defendant’s conduct was a “but for” cause of the plaintiff’s injury? Give an example of an accident (real or made up) that has more than one but-for cause.
TQ 4.2: The plaintiff has the burden of showing that the injury was “more likely than not” the result of the defendant’s negligence. If you were on the jury in Stubbs, would you have concluded that the plaintiff had met this burden? Why or why not?
TQ 4.3: Define the concept of proximate cause. Is it possible for something to be an actual cause but not a proximate cause? Is it possible for something to be a proximate cause but not an actual cause?
TQ 4.4: Answer the following questions for the Perry, Havert, and Brown cases: (1) How was the defendant’s conduct an actual cause of the plaintiff’s injuries? (2) Why did the court find that the defendant’s conduct was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries?
DQ 4.1: Google the term “market share liability” and read through several definitions of the concept from a variety of sources. Then, briefly define the term and discuss whether you would support the adoption of this theory in your jurisdiction. Be specific about the types of cases in which you think the theory should or should not be applied.
DQ 4.2: If you were representing the plaintiff in Perry v. Rochester Lime Co. and it were possible to appeal Judge Cardozo’s ruling to a higher court, what arguments would you make on behalf of your client?
