Here will begin by examining how courts approach the issue using the “but-for” test of causation, which asks whether the accident would have occurred “but-for” the defendant’s negligent conduct. The question requires us to imagine what would have occurred if we remove only the element of the defendant’s negligent conduct while holding all other facts of the situation constant.

1. “But-for” Causation (如果没有此种加害，则不会发生此种损害)

The “but-for” test is applied by considering only the negligent aspect of the defendant’s conduct. In the Lyons case followed, for example, it is clear that the conduct of driving the truck caused the accident, in the sense that had the defendant not driven at all, the accident would not have occurred. This is not the issue, however. Instead the court focuses on whether the accident would have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent conduct.

 

2. Proving But-for Cause: The Slip and Fall Case

    Proving “but-for” causation can be a challenge even in fairly ordinary fact situation Consider, for example, that staple of tort litigation known as the “slip and fall.” Even if the plaintiff can prove that the defendant negligently created a dangerous situation – a pool of spilled liquid or a banana peel left on the floor, a slippery or poorly lighted staircase – the plaintiff must still prove that the dangerous condition caused the fall. In many cases that has proved surprisingly difficult to do.