Cause in Fact

Can the P prove that BUT FOR the D's action or inaction the P would not have been injury…
Book Definition:Whether the harm would have occurred but for the defendant's failure to have taken then untaken precaution that constituted the breach of duty.

More likely than not the doctors negligence increased the P's/caused a loss of significant chance of survival p must prove that BUT FOR the d.s. neg. p would not have been injured

There is nothing whatsoever to show that the decedent was not drowned because he did not know how to swim, not anything to show that, if there had been a life buoy on board, his wife would have got it in time....

Missing seaman for 6 hours - captain did not stop to look for him
the inaction of the master established a neglect of the duty of rescue - a neglect from which a contributing cause of the seaman's death is fairly and conclusively drawn by law

Ice horsesCompany not liable

Father-son drowned in motel pool
Motel liable for failure to warn

Dentist toothache - missing jaw
RULE: causation in an informed consent suit "is to be judged by an OBJECTIVE standard, that is, whether a reasonable person in the P-patient's position would have consented to the treatment that led to his or her injuries had the p-patient been properly informed of the risk of the injury that befell him or her

Use a subjective standard

Plastic surgery bags under eyes
Where no expert can objectively evaluate whether the failure to warn was the proximate cause of the patient's injury, no expert can be required

RULE: Damages should be awarded to the injured party or his family based only on damages caused directly by premature death, such as lost earnings, and additional medical expenses, etc.

RULE: Damages for negligence in providing medical care may be based on evidence that it is a reasonable medical probability that the P would have benefited by possible cure, possible lengthening of his life, and/or improved personal comfort for more prompt diagnosis and treatment