Extension_Cord wrote:Whats the effect of direct causation when you have two cause combine and either could have cause the damage itself? Generally direct causation is the same as the but-for test, but when you use the substantial factor the but-for test wouldn't work?
Also, if im writing a negligence IRAC. Where would be the best place to talk about defenses? between causation and damages or after damages?
For two causes, say two people each shoot a shot gun in the general direction of a person at the same time and a pellet hits him in the eye (Summers v. Tice, we hammered the case to death in class), you use the substantial factor cause. In that case the burden will shift to the two shooters to show that they werent negligent. Of course you will have to make a general showing that they were substantial factors (but you just cant tell which one). Technically you can say both of them are but for causes for the time being but you need to use substantial factor. If neither of them can prove they weren't negligent then they are both liable.
Im having a few issues organizing defenses also. Sometimes I feel like it is better to write about their defense after you talk about a reason they might be liable, like what their rebuttal would be. Other times, like when the defense will involve a bigger issue that also involves another party, I think it might be better to put it at the end of an argument for a certain party's negligence so it may kind of segway into this new party's case. I'm not sure whats better yet, but I dont think its a huge deal