The idea of causation is central to all rulings made on tort law cases because it is a basic requirement. For instance, an individual can only be accused of battery if she consciously initiates body contact with the victim. Similarly, she can be sued for negligence if her actions lead to property damage or personal injury. Causation is necessary to connect a tortfeasor to the offenses, which is crucial in making her liable for the harm. It is also important to note that actual cause and proximate cause are often used together in cases and that later have to be determined by law. The two factors are crucial in determining the kind of liability involved and allocating monetary values to the damages caused.
Consequently, a plaintiff must demonstrate to the court that the defendant’s breach of duty was the proximate and actual cause of the damages experienced. As noted in the previous sections, negligence comprises four elements, including violation of duty and causation. Whereas the former refers to the act of intentionally ignoring one’s obligation toward another party, the latter is the action itself conducted while breaching duty. Once the plaintiff has proven that the defendant had a duty to fulfill, but through a cause, he neglected it, she can proceed to illustrate the damages incurred in the process.
“But-for test” is one of the approaches various states use to determine the actual cause of a tort which indicates that an action would not have led to the injury in question if it had not occurred. The substantial factor test is the other method used in actual causation, where the court has to assess whether the defendant’s behavior was sufficient enough to create the damages. The case Hoyt v. Jeffers 30 Mich. 181 is a typical illustration of courts applying the substantial factor test. Jeffers owned a sawmill that often discharged sparks through its chimney, while Hoyt operated a hotel nearby. The latter sued the former for the fire caused to his hotel, believing that the sparks from the sawmill were responsible for the catastrophe. The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the basis that the sparks from the sawmill were a substantial factor in causing the fire. Similarly, the “but-for test” also applies to the case because had it not been for the sparks leaving the sawmill through the chimney, the fire incident would never have occurred.
Actual causation is necessary for establishing liability because there has to be proof of a breach of duty if the plaintiff is to be compensated. Joint and several liabilities are an example of approaches tort court systems apply to defendants as a result of actual causation. When two or more individuals mutually and discretely participate in a tortious act, each of them is separately responsible for the resulting damages. The defendants are judged collectively since they jointly participated in actual causation by breaching the same duty of care. However, the plaintiff can only collect equivalent damages from one of the offenders as directed by the law of indivisible injury. For instance, if a plaintiff reports two individuals for injuries worth $1,000,000 caused by negligence, the court can apply the joint and several liabilities method and demand that one of the defendants pay the full amount. However, if the selected tortfeasor cannot pay the damages, he can ask for a contribution from his fellow offender.