A pedestrian was injured when an elevator malfunctioned and fell several floors inside a department store. A subsequent investigation revealed that a defect in the cable system and the elevator operator's negligence in exceeding the weight limit were contributing factors in the accident. If the pedestrian sues the department store for negligence, which of the following explanations of causation best applies to this case?
The department store is liable if the defect in the cable system and the elevator operator's negligence were substantial factors in causing the pedestrian's injury.
The department store is liable if the pedestrian proves the injury would not have occurred but for the elevator operator's negligence.
The department store is not liable if the defect in the cable system independently caused the elevator to malfunction.
The department store is not liable if the pedestrian's decision to enter the elevator is considered an assumption of the risk.
The correct answer identifies the principle of the substantial factor test, which is used when multiple causes contribute to a single harm. In this scenario, both the defect in the cable system and the elevator operator's negligence significantly contributed to the injury, and thus both are substantial factors. The other answers misstate the law: the 'but-for' test is less appropriate in cases with multiple sufficient causes, and reliance on concepts like assumption of risk or sole causation overlooks key aspects of negligence liability. Courts generally evaluate whether each party's conduct contributed meaningfully to the harm.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the substantial factor test?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does negligence relate to liability in this case?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What role does the 'but-for' test play in causation cases?