This Article explores a feature of the law of causation in torts that has received little analysis: what I call “self-proving causation.” This is a class of negligence cases in which there is no direct evidence of cause-in-fact. Rather, there is circumstantial evidence resting on the fact that the defendant was negligent. In most tort cases, evidence of negligence cannot serve as the basis, and certainly not as the sole basis, of an inference that this negligence caused the harm for which the plaintiff seeks damages. But in self-proving causation cases that is precisely what occurs. So the question is, what distinguishes self-proving causation from other proof of causation? The Article first examines what makes self-proving causation cases distinctive. It then turns to what has become in a short time the most salient and provocative self-proving causation case ever decided, Zuchowicz v. United States. In an opinion by Judge Calabresi, the court held that, because overdoses of prescription drugs often increase the risk of harm, the plaintiff had introduced legally sufficient evidence of causation by proving that the defendant had negligently provided the plaintiff an excessive dose of a particular drug. The Article peels off the layers of the opinion in that case by identifying and evaluating the key steps in the reasoning that leads to its conclusion. Finally, the Article explores the precedential significance of Zuchowicz and its application in some subsequent cases, and considers what this analysis can tell us about the requirements for application of self-proving causation generally.
Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like...
The glaring gap in tort theory is its failure to take adequate account of liability insurance. Much of tort theory fails to recognize the active and...
These are momentous times for the comparative analysis of judicial behaviour. Once the sole province of US political scientists, a new generation of...
An upcoming Supreme Court case on Article III standing and disability presents critical questions about the future of litigation that promotes...
Constitutional review is the power of a body, usually a court, to assess whether law or government action complies with the constitution. Originating...
“Dignity” is a rallying cry of social and political movements worldwide. It also appears in legal doctrine and scholarship. But the meaning of dignity...
Donald J. Trump appointed 234 federal judges in his first term. Trump, as is his wont, claims, with an inflated number, that he appointed a record...
On January 1, 2022, the most radical change to the American jury in at least thirty-five years occurred in Arizona: peremptory strikes, long a feature...
Legal ethicists, advocacy groups, and politicians have called for greater restrictions on the use of nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) when parties...
Three established torts require the defendant’s behavior to be “offensive” or “highly offensive” in order to be actionable: offensive battery, public...
In recent years, the federal courts have seen a plethora of lawsuits originated by states challenging federal government actions. As a result, there...
This paper, prepared for the 2023 Clifford Symposium on “New Torts” at DePaul Law School, addresses the tort of offensive battery. This is an ancient...
This casebook aspires to help students understand and think systematically about the techniques of statutory interpretation. It blends exposition with...
This Essay reports data on the impact of Bruen and its predecessor, Heller, on gun rights cases. Put mildly, the impact was substantial, not only in...
It has long been said that the common law "works itself pure" But in the law of torts, not always. This Article reveals and analyzes the...
In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the Supreme Court began adopting First Amendment restrictions on liability for defamation and other speech torts...
In this paper we investigate whether gender is associated with the content of judicial opinions in the U.S. courts of appeals. Using a topic model...
Donald J. Trump's presidency broke the mold in many ways, including how to think about judicial appointments. Unlike other recent presidents, Trump...