Causation is the element of an injury case where the injured person must prove that the defendant’s negligence which caused the injury the defendant is suffering. Said another way, the plaintiff must show that the actions of another party caused his or her injuries and damages.
Generally, there are three elements that are needed to prove an injury case. All three must be proven or the case fails.
- the first element is Negligence (that the defendant did something wrong or negligent.)
- The second element is Damages (that the injured person incurred medical bills, has injuries and pain and suffering and so forth.)
- The third element is Causation (which is a nexus or connection between liability and damages.)
One must show that the particular negligence of the defendant was the legal or “but for” cause of the specific damages that are being claimed. Without causation, there is no liability against the defendant and therefore no case! This seems like it is a simple matter but it is not always so clear what causes an injury. Indeed, the standard jury instructions on causation is helpful in understanding causation and I have posted those below.
Sometimes, causation is truly obvious. If someone is in a very bad car wreck, puts their hand on the dashboard as the cars collide, and then their arm breaks (a dislocated fracture which pierces the skin), it would be unusual for anyone to contest that the accident caused the injury. It would seem obvious to point out that someone would not have a broken arm which would require surgery before the accident and then try to claim that the accident caused the accident. On the other hand, when someone is involved in a parking lot accident where the cars are admittedly going 2 or 3 miles per hour at time of impact and results in no damages to the car yet, someone in the car is claims to have a lower back injury that requires surgery. This case likely would be challenged on causation. In other words, the defendant would likely argue that a smaller accident could not cause the need to have surgery.
Thus, I am talking about the first common challenge to causation in car accident cases which is is the property damage to the car. A common challenge to car accident causation is the damages to the car. Insurance companies and defense lawyers often take the position that when there is little or no damage to the vehicle, the injury cannot result or the injuries claimed are not caused by the accident. This is a classic causation defense. If the jury does not believe the accident causes the injuries claimed, then they cannot award those damages (note: there could be an aggravation of injury and I will write about that in another blog entry later). When there is a lot of damages to the cars, then the plaintiff will argue to a jury: of course, these injuries that are related; one must look at all the damage to the car) but, when there is not a lot of damages the defendant will argue to a jury, “look at the damages to the car (there are none or there are just scratches) and an accident like this could not cause the injuries claimed.”
In a slip and fall case, while there generally is not property damage, there would be some indicators of the nature of the fall. These indications/damages would be similar to the nature of a car accident. If someone were to fall and pictures taken of their body shows significant bruising, that would be evidence that the nature of the fall was severe and more likely caused the resulting injuries. In other words, those bruises could be used to prove the nature of fall was more violent and more likely to CAUSE the injuries. Bruises or contusions also are often referenced in hospital records or doctor notes. If someone fell and injured their knee, again it would be persuasive on the causation issue if there are pictures and/or some reference in the medical records that bruises or contusions were/are present. On the other hand, if there is video of a person slipping but not actually falling to the ground, then this would be suggestive of less injury (all things equal) and very well might be helpful to the defense to negating the CAUSATION issue that the injuries were related.
There are other parts of causation, like the timing or delay in treatment, as well as, prior, similar injuries which will be discussed in the next couple of blog entries.
Of course, every case is different and must be judged on its merits. It is a good start to get a free consultation regarding an accident case in case this happens to you. The advise and information contained in this blog is intended to be of general matter and not as to a specific situation, so please call a licensed Florida attorney, like Drucker Law Offices, to determine if and how Florida law applies to your case.
If you have been in an accident, please call Drucker Law Offices for a free consultation at 561-483-9199 (Boca Raton- Main office) or 954-755-2120 (Coral Springs- satellite office) or 305-981-1561 (Miami- satellite office).
It is important to note that every case is unique and should be judged based on the specific facts of the case. The advice in this blog is intended to be general in nature and should not to be construed as specific advice for a case, as a minor difference in the facts of the case could change the result. Also, this blog is, as the web site suggests, based on Florida law and the laws of any other states or even another country could vary from Florida.
Florida Jury Instruction on Causation:
LEGAL CAUSE
(PROXIMATE, CONCURRING, INTERVENING CAUSE)
a. Legal cause generally:
Negligence is a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] if it directly and in natural and
continuous sequence produces or contributes substantially to producing such [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], so that it can reasonably be said that, but for the negligence, the [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]
would not have occurred.
b. Concurring cause:
In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage], negligence need not be
the only cause. Negligence may be a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates
in combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] some other cause if such other cause
occurs at the same time as the negligence and if the negligence contributes substantially to producing
such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage].
c. Intervening cause:
*Do not use the bracketed first sentence if this charge is preceded by the charge on concurring cause:
*[In order to be regarded as a legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or]
[damage], negligence need not be its only cause.] Negligence may also be a
legal cause of [loss] [injury] [or] [damage] even though it operates in
combination with [the act of another] [some natural cause] [or] some other
cause occurring after the negligence occurs if [such other cause was itself
reasonably foreseeable and the negligence contributes substantially to
producing such [loss] [injury] [or] [damage]] [or] [the resulting [loss]
[injury] [or] [damage] was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the
negligence and the negligence contributes substantially to producing it].
