The Issue Regarding Causation and Liability

A Perspective on Causation and Liability

Judith Jarvis Thomson puts forth a discussion regarding causation and liability. By

using both Summers I and her hypothetical variant Summers II case, she asks why it matters whose negligence caused the harm in deciding who is to supply compensation to a victim. If two defendants acted in an equally negligent way, shouldn’t both of them be liable? The issue to address is whether having caused harm should be a necessary condition for liability for that harm. I believe that even if there were two people who were equally involved in committing the same negligent act, if there is solid evidence to prove who in fact caused an injury then that person needs to bear the cost and punishment and be held liable. Causation is a fully necessary condition for liability, and liability will lead a guilty defendant to take responsibility.

In the original case of Summers I, the plaintiff Summers executed a lawsuit against two defendants for an injury to his eye as the result of being struck by a bird shot discharged from a shotgun. Summers had gone out quail hunting with the two defendants, Tice and Simonson, when a quail was flushed and both defendants fired their shot in the direction of Summers. Tice and Simonson both had an unobstructed view of Summers, both were equally distant from him, and were equipped with the same kind of gun and bullets. Due to this fact, it became impossible to conclusively determine which gun the pellet in the plaintiff’s eye had come from. The burden shifted from the plaintiff having to identify which defendant caused his harm, to each defendant having to show he wasn’t responsible for the harm. Neither Tice nor Simonson could carry that burden so the courts

1



found both Tice and Simonson “jointly and severally liable” (Thomson, 1984) for Summers’ injury. They both were responsible for firing their guns negligently in the presence of Summers, and were found guilty for failing to breach a duty of...