THE “BUT FOR” TEST
In order for plaintiffs’ personal-injury suits to be valid, they must establish that the defendant owed them a duty of care and breached that duty. Plaintiffs must also show that as a consequence of that breached duty, they suffered harm, and the burden of proof does not stop there. In addition, the test of causation requires the defendant to show that the loss or damage sustained by the claimant was not too “remote.” The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred “but for” the negligence of the defendant. If a plaintiff’s harm could not reasonably be foreseen to be a consequence of the plaintiff’s actions, the law limits the amount of compensatory damages available for the wrong.
If you have suffered an injury and believe something could have been done to prevent it, you need to call us. Reviewing your circumstances with one of our experienced attorneys won’t cost you anything. We can provide you with sound advice and handle any critical communications. Put your mind at ease by calling us to schedule an appointment. Celebrating 30 years of service to the community.
HINT: In some cases, it may be sufficient for a plaintiff in a tort case to show that the defendant’s breach of duty made the risk of injury more probable.