Causation is the element of an injury case where  the injured person must prove that the defendant’s negligence 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 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.  You 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 that someone would not have a broken arm that 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 resulting in no damages to the car and yet someone in the car is claiming 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.

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).

And thus I am talking about the first common challenge to causation in car accident cases and that 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 that injury cannot result or that 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 are related; look at all the damage to the car) but when there is not a lot of damages, then the defendant will argue to a jury:  look at the damages to the car (there are none or there are just scrathes) and an accident like this could not cause the injuries claimed.

In a slip and fall case, while there generally is not property damage but there would be some indicators of the nature of the fall, which would be similar to the nature of a car accident.  If someone were to fall and afterwords they took pictures of their body which showed 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 there were bruises or contusions to the knee.  On the other hand, if there is video and a person slipped but did not actually fall 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.

At Drucker Law Offices, client are helped to prove the elements of their case including causation.  I attempt to get pictures of the car for this issue and take pictures of scarring, bruising, and contusions and most importantly, explain these issues to the clients so that they can property describe their injuries to the doctors so that their file is properly documented.  If you have a question about an accident case, please call the offices at 561-493-9199 or 954-755-2120 or 305-981-1561.

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)

1. 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.

1. 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].

1. 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].

 

 

Before March of 2023, Florida followed comparative fault laws.  This meant that a plaintiff could recover as against a defendant, even if plaintiff was 90 percent at fault but they could only recover the 10 percent that the particular defendant was found at fault.  However, under the contributory negligence laws that passed in March 2023, if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50 percent at fault, then the plaintiff recovers nothing.  So this is a huge change in the law.   I pasted the law below.

 

The 2024 Florida Statutes (including 2025 Special Session C)

Title XLV TORTS Chapter 768 NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter 1768.81 Comparative fault.— (1) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section, the term: (a) “Accident” means the events and actions that relate to the incident as well as those events and actions that relate to the alleged defect or injuries, including enhanced injuries. (b) “Economic damages” means past lost income and future lost income reduced to present value; medical and funeral expenses; lost support and services; replacement value of lost personal property; loss of appraised fair market value of real property; costs of construction repairs, including labor, overhead, and profit; and any other economic loss that would not have occurred but for the injury giving rise to the cause of action. (c) “Negligence action” means, without limitation, a civil action for damages based upon a theory of negligence, strict liability, products liability, professional malpractice whether couched in terms of contract or tort, or breach of warranty and like theories. The substance of an action, not conclusory terms used by a party, determines whether an action is a negligence action. (d) “Products liability action” means a civil action based upon a theory of strict liability, negligence, breach of warranty, nuisance, or similar theories for damages caused by the manufacture, construction, design, formulation, installation, preparation, or assembly of a product. The term includes an action alleging that injuries received by a claimant in an accident were greater than the injuries the claimant would have received but for a defective product. The substance of an action, not the conclusory terms used by a party, determines whether an action is a products liability action. (2) EFFECT OF CONTRIBUTORY FAULT.—In a negligence action, contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as economic and noneconomic damages for an injury attributable to the claimant’s contributory fault, but does not bar recovery, subject to subsection (6). (3) APPORTIONMENT OF DAMAGES.—In a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability. (a)1. In order to allocate any or all fault to a nonparty, a defendant must affirmatively plead the fault of a nonparty and, absent a showing of good cause, identify the nonparty, if known, or describe the nonparty as specifically as practicable, either by motion or in the initial responsive pleading when defenses are first presented, subject to amendment any time before trial in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. In order to allocate any or all fault to a nonparty and include the named or unnamed nonparty on the verdict form for purposes of apportioning damages, a defendant must prove at trial, by a preponderance of the evidence, the fault of the nonparty in causing the plaintiff’s injuries. (b) In a products liability action alleging that injuries received by a claimant in an accident were enhanced by a defective product, the trier of fact shall consider the fault of all persons who contributed to the accident when apportioning fault between or among them. The jury shall be appropriately instructed by the trial judge on the apportionment of fault in products liability actions where there are allegations that the injuries received by the claimant in an accident were enhanced by a defective product. The rules of evidence apply to these actions. (4) APPLICABILITY.—This section does not apply to any action brought by any person to recover actual economic damages resulting from pollution, to any action based upon an intentional tort, or to any cause of action as to which application of the doctrine of joint and several liability is specifically provided by chapter 403, chapter 498, chapter 517, chapter 542, or chapter 895. (5) MEDICAL MALPRACTICE.—Notwithstanding anything in law to the contrary, in an action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical malpractice, whether in contract or tort, if an apportionment of damages pursuant to this section is attributed to a teaching hospital as defined in s. 408.07, the court shall enter judgment against the teaching hospital on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability. (6) GREATER PERCENTAGE OF FAULT.—In a negligence action to which this section applies, any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for his or her own harm may not recover any damages. This subsection does not apply to an action for damages for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical negligence pursuant to chapter 766. History.—ss. 60, 65, ch. 86-160; s. 5, ch. 87-50; s. 79, ch. 88-1; s. 43, ch. 88-277; s. 1, ch. 88-335; s. 38, ch. 91-110; s. 104, ch. 92-33; s. 27, ch. 99-225; s. 1, ch. 2006-6; s. 1, ch. 2011-215; s. 9, ch. 2023-15. 1Note.— A. Section 2, ch. 2011-215, provides that “[t]he Legislature intends that this act be applied retroactively and overrule D’Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 2001), which adopted what the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged to be a minority view. That minority view fails to apportion fault for damages consistent with Florida’s statutory comparative fault system, codified in s. 768.81, Florida Statutes, and leads to inequitable and unfair results, regardless of the damages sought in the litigation. The Legislature finds that, in a products liability action as defined in this act, fault should be apportioned among all responsible persons.” B. Section 3, ch. 2011-215, provides that “[t]his act is remedial in nature and applies retroactively. The Legislature finds that the retroactive application of this act does not unconstitutionally impair vested rights. Rather, the law affects only remedies, permitting recovery against all tortfeasors while lessening the ultimate liability of each consistent with this state’s statutory comparative fault system, codified in s. 768.81, Florida Statutes. In all cases, the Legislature intends that this act be construed consistent with the due process provisions of the State Constitution and the Constitution of the United States.”

Happy father’s day to all the fathers, grandfathers, father figures and so forth.