Actual Causation Problems: Well Water Contamination

Torts

Eric E. Johnson

ericejohnson.com

Konomark
Most rights sharable

Water Well Contamination Problems

For all of these hypos, we’ll assume that there was a duty, a breach of that duty, an injury, and that there’s proximate causation so long as there’s actual causation.

So it all comes down to actual causation ...

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Hazmat personnel in protective equipment

Who's liable?

Only one of the companies
Both
Neither
I really don't have a good guess

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

We always want to start with the but-for question!

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company?

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? NO

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? NO

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company?

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? NO

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company? NO

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? NO

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company? NO

So now we need to see if the plaintiff can show actual causation through the multiple sufficient cause doctrine.

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Were the actions of the first company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury?

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Were the actions of the first company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury? YES

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Were the actions of the first company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury? YES

Were the actions of the second company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury?

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Were the actions of the first company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury? YES

Were the actions of the second company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury? YES

Well Water Hypo #1

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 1000 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Result: Neither company’s action is a but-for cause of the resident’s death, yet both companies’ actions were actual causes and thus both companies can be held liable.

Tweaked hypothetical!

Well Water Hypo #2

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 400 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Who's liable?

Only one of the companies
Both
Neither
Honestly speaking, I’m lost

Well Water Hypo #2

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 400 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company?

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company?

Well Water Hypo #2

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 400 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? YES

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company?

Well Water Hypo #2

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 400 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? YES

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company? YES

Well Water Hypo #2

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump roughly equal amounts of toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The well water has 400 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? YES

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company? YES

Result: The but-for test is satisfied for both defendants. The actual cause element is met. No need to engage in multiple-sufficient-cause analysis.

Let’s do another …

Tweaked hypothetical!

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

FYI: You should probably be able to do that math in your head, but I personally consider it to be just over the borderline for how much math to expect students to do on a law exam. (Because I know you’ll be nervous, and I don’t want to add math anxiety into the equation.)

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

FYI: You should probably be able to do that math in your head, but I personally consider it to be just over the borderline for how much math to expect students to do on a law exam. (Because I know you’ll be nervous, and I don’t want to add load math anxiety into the equation situation.)

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Who's liable?

Only one of the companies
Both
Neither
I'm more lost than ever

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company?

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company?

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? YES

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company?

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Analysis: Ask the “but for” question.

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the first company? YES

Is it correct to say that the plaintiff would not have been injured but for the actions of the second company? NO

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Multiple sufficient causes

When each of multiple discrete careless acts committed by different multiple actors would, by itself, have caused the injury that resulted from the confluence of those acts, each act is deemed an actual cause, even though neither satisfies the but-for test.

Review

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Were the actions of the second company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury?

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Were the actions of the second company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury? NO

Well Water Hypo #3

Hypo: Two chemical companies both dump toxic chemicals into the ground which seep through the soil and contaminate a nearby residential well. The first company dumped 150% as much as the second company. The well water has 500 ppm of the chemical. The resident drinks the water and dies. A dosage of 300 ppm is the minimum needed and is enough to injure and kill someone.

[Doing the math, the first company contributed 300 ppm, and the second company contributed 200 ppm.]

Analysis: Does the multiple sufficient cause doctrine apply?

Were the actions of the second company enough to bring about the plaintiff’s injury? NO

Result: Only the first company may be held liable.