In April, this blog discussed a bit about the concept of negligence in Nevada and, more specifically, what the elements of such a claim would be in a civil case to recover damages due to, say, a motorcycle accident. We also touched on the elements of legal duty and breach of that duty as the first part of such a case. Some may realize that simply having a breach of a legal duty will not be enough to impose liability, however. The next part of a negligence case is showing causation; that is, did the injuries in the accident result from the breach of duty claimed?
There are two kinds of causation in a negligence case, and both must be shown for a victim to recover. Today we will very briefly discuss ‘cause in fact,’ the first of these types of causation. ‘Proximate cause’ is a bit more complicated and will have to wait for a post of its own.
Cause in fact is also sometimes known as ‘but-for’ causation, because it attempts to determine whether the negligence alleged actually caused the stated injury. In other words, but for the negligent action or inaction, would the injury not have occurred? This may be thought of, in a way, as direct causation. Did the breach of the legal duty in the case actually lead to the accident, and thus the injury, directly, no matter how attenuated the timeframe? This is generally the easier of the causation elements to prove, because in many cases it will be obvious that the negligent behavior caused the accident in question.
Motorcycle accidents can have huge consequences for those involved. Due to their small size and lack of safety features, motorcycles offer little in the way of protection from injury when they crash. Those who believe they have been injured do to another’s negligence, may wish to consider consulting an experienced Nevada injury attorney.