Also known as: but-for rule · but for test · but-for test · but-for causation · cause in fact
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A test for factual causation under which conduct qualifies as a cause in fact of a result if the result would not have occurred in the absence of that conduct.
Bharat Bhatia and Boubacar Bah both fire shotguns toward a shared target area without coordinating their shots. A pellet strikes Brendan Burns in the leg. Burns cannot identify which shooter caused the wound. Each defendant must show his shot did not produce the injury or face joint liability for the harm.
Brian Bailey stabs Barbara Bennett during an argument. Bennett receives treatment but dies from complications eighteen months later. The prosecution cannot establish homicide liability because the death falls outside the one-year-and-a-day window even though the stabbing supplied but-for causation.
Bethany Boyd complains about discrimination and is later fired by Bright Path Foods. She sues under Title VII alleging the complaint prompted the discharge. The court requires her to prove the complaint was the but-for reason for the termination rather than a contributing factor.
The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, a teaching hospital affiliated with the University of Texas, hired Naiel Nassar, a physician of Middle Eastern descent, first as a medical resident in 2001 and later as an assistant professor in the Department of Internal Medicine in 2006. Nassar's direct supervisor was Dr. Michael Levine, the Chief of Infectious Disease Medicine, and he also worked with Dr. Brian Becherer, the Medical Director of the hospital's employee health clinic. In 2007 and 2008, Nassar complained to his supervisors that he was being subjected to discrimination and harassment by Levine on the basis of his religion and ethnic heritage. In July 2008, Nassar was offered and accepted a position as a full-time faculty member in the Department of Internal Medicine. In August 2008, Nassar resigned from his faculty position in a letter stating that the primary reason for his departure was the hostile work environment created by Levine's harassment. After Nassar resigned, Becherer sent a letter to the state medical board reporting that Nassar had resigned while under investigation for professional misconduct involving alleged improper billing practices. Nassar filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas alleging two claims under Title VII: status-based discrimination on the basis of his race, religion, and national origin, and retaliation for complaining about Levine's conduct. The case proceeded to trial before a jury. The District Court instructed the jury that Nassar could prevail on his retaliation claim if he showed that retaliation was a motivating factor in the hospital's decision to send the letter to the medical board. The jury found for Nassar on both claims and awarded him $3,000 in backpay and $400,000 in compensatory damages, which the District Court reduced to $300,000 pursuant to the statutory cap. The hospital appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the retaliation verdict on the theory that the motivating-factor standard applied. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseOfficers enter Blackwood Technologies headquarters without knocking and announcing their presence. They seize documents during the search. The company moves to suppress the evidence arguing the unlawful manner of entry supplied but-for causation for the discovery.
Police officers obtained a search warrant authorizing a search for drugs and firearms at the home of petitioner Booker T. Hudson in Michigan. Upon arriving to execute the warrant, the officers knocked on the door and announced their presence. They waited only three to five seconds before turning the knob of the unlocked front door and entering Hudson's home. Inside the residence, officers discovered large quantities of drugs, including cocaine rocks in Hudson's pocket, and a loaded gun lodged between the cushion and armrest of the chair in which he was sitting. Hudson was charged under Michigan law with unlawful drug and firearm possession. He moved to suppress all the inculpatory evidence, arguing that the officers' premature entry violated his rights. The Michigan trial court granted the motion to suppress. On interlocutory review, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, and the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal. Hudson was subsequently convicted of the possession charges. He renewed his suppression claim on appeal, but the Michigan Court of Appeals rejected it and affirmed the conviction. The Michigan Supreme Court again declined review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider the case.
View caseBrendan Burns uses a grinder manufactured by Benson Motors for several years and develops hand-arm vibration syndrome. He sues alleging the tool's design caused the condition. The court examines whether the injury would have occurred but for the absence of vibration-dampening features.
Barbara Bennett buys a home from Beacon Bank without learning that a notorious murder occurred inside years earlier. After discovering the fact she sues for fraud. The court assesses whether the nondisclosure was the but-for cause of her decision to purchase at the contract price.
Dorris Reed purchased a house from Robert King. Neither King nor his real estate agents told Reed that a woman and her four children were murdered there 10 years earlier. However, King and his real estate agent knew about the murders and knew the event materially affected the market value of the house when they listed it for sale. They represented to Reed the premises were in good condition and fit for an “elderly lady” living alone but did not disclose the fact of the murders. At some point King asked a neighbor not to inform Reed of that event. Nonetheless, after Reed moved in neighbors informed her no one was interested in purchasing the house because of the stigma. Reed paid $76,000, but the house is only worth $65,000 because of its past. Reed sues seeking rescission and damages. King and the real estate agent defendants successfully demurred to her first amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Reed appeals the ensuing judgment of dismissal.
View caseThe plaintiff must show that the harm would not have occurred in the absence of the defendant's conduct. This factual causation element is distinct from proximate cause and is ordinarily decided by the jury when evidence creates a genuine dispute.
Supporting sources
No. Even when but-for causation is clear the year-and-a-day rule may bar homicide charges if death occurs after the prescribed period. The temporal limit operates independently of the factual causation inquiry.
Supporting sources
The burden shifts in cases of unascertainable causes where multiple negligent defendants each could have caused a single indivisible harm and the plaintiff cannot identify which one actually did so. Each defendant must then prove its conduct was not the cause in fact of the injury.
Supporting sources
The but-for test asks whether the harm would have happened without the act. The substantial-factor test applies when multiple sufficient causes combine and focuses on whether the act played a material role in producing the result.
…what he or she did as well.” In taking issue with this instruction, the defendants argue that the phrase “because of” requires but-for causation—a showing that they would not have acted but for the victim’s actual or perceived religious beliefs. The defendants have the better of the argument. In everyday usage, the phrase “because…