In order to maintain anegligence/tort action in Arizona, an injury victim must establish the four elements of a tort.
Those four elements include:
In other words, the injury victim must prove that the defendant had a duty to the victim, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach of the duty caused damages.
Some previous rulings on causation include:
- Causation is generally a question of fact for the jury to resolve.
Fehribach v. Smith , 200 Ariz. 69, 73, ¶ 16, 22 P.3d 508, 512 (App. 2001).
- Causation does not have to be established with “absolute certainty
so as to exclude every other conclusion.”
Morrison v. Acton , 68 Ariz. 27, 33, 198 P.2d 590, 594 (1948).
- “To be a proximate cause, Defendant’s conduct may have contributed
only slightly to the injury.”
Id. (Emphasis added);
Tellez v. Saban , 188 Ariz. 165, 171, 933 P.2d 1233 (App. 1996);
Ontiveros v. Borak , 136 Ariz. 500-505, 667 P.2d 200 (1983).
- The court examines the total evidence regarding causation and determines
whether there is a genuine controversy for the jury to decide. “A
party may prove proximate causation by presenting facts from which a causal
relationship may be inferred, but the party cannot leave causation to
the jury’s speculation.”
- Salica v. Tucson Heart Hospital-Carondelet , 224 Ariz. 414, 419, ¶ 16, 231 P.3d 946, 951 (App. 2010).