The doctrine of causation-in-fact, or factual causation, is primarily concerned with

whether it is just to hold a particular negligent defendant liable for unusual harms that he or she has caused

whether the defendant did in fact behave negligently

whether the plaintiff suffered a type of damages that the legal system recognizes

whether the plaintiff's injury would have happened even if the defendant had not been negligent

The doctrine of proximate causation, or "scope of liability," is primarily concerned with

whether the plaintiff suffered a type of damages that the legal system recognizes

whether the plaintiff's injury would have happened even if the defendant had not been negligent

whether the particular injury that occurred is appropriately assignable to the defendant's negligence (versus being too distant, unforeseeable, or something similar)

whether the defendant did in fact behave negligently

"Lost chance," market-share liability, and the pattern of Summers v. Tice are all exceptions to the ordinary rule of

duty

proximate causation

breach

but-for causation

True or false:If a plaintiff establishes but-for causation, there is no need for the plaintiff to establish proximate causation.

True

False

The eggshell-plaintiff rule is an exception to the ordinary rule of

breach

duty

proximate causation

factual causation

The doctrine of "lost chance" primarily applies to cases of

medical malpractice

negligence per se

respondeat superior

govrenmental liability

True or false:Breach and duty, causation-in-fact, proximate causation, and damages are all elements of a negligence action.

True

False

True or false: Summers v. Tice dealt with the issue of multiple negligent defendants.

True

False

True or false: As a general matter, under the "eggshell plaintiff" rule, there is no limitation for injuries that result from your negligently harming a human body.

True

False

True or false:A market-share liability case always involves a single defendant.

True

False