|
''Sine qua non'' (; )〔 or ''condicio sine qua non'' (plural: ''condiciones sine quibus non'') refers to an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. It was originally a Latin legal term for "(condition ) without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which (is ) nothing". ''"Sine qua non" causation'' is the formal terminology for ''"but-for" causation''. =="But-for" causation in law== In legal matters, "''but-for''", "''sine qua non''", ''causa sine qua non'',〔http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/C/CausaSineQuaNon.aspx〕 or "''cause-in-fact''" causation, or ''conditio sine qua non'', is a circumstance in which a certain act is a material cause of a certain injury or wrongdoing, without which the injury would not have occurred. It is established by the ''"but-for" test'': but for the act having occurred, the injury would not have happened. THE DEFENDANT'S NEGLIGENT CONDUCT IS THE ACTUAL CAUSE OF THE PLAINTIFF'S INJURY IF THE HARM WOULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED TO THE PLAINTIFF "BUT FOR" THE NEGLIGENT CONDUCT OF THE DEFENDANT. (PERKINS) This type of causation is often contrasted with ''substantial-factor'' causation. The substantial factor test is used when there are multiple negligent tortfeasors which either (1) all caused the injury, in which case any and all of them are 100% joint and severally liable (treated as the group but suing the money) and the charged defendant would have to implead or sue the others to square the damages, or (2) only one could have actually caused the injury but they were all negligent in the same way and that one cannot be determined, in which case the burden shifts and any of them that cannot show their negligence was not the cause is 100 % joint and severally liable. The purpose of this is allow the aggrieved party to get their damages, and make the negligent tortfeasors square up amongst themselves. See e.g. Hill v. Edmonds, (N.Y., 1966); Anderson v. Minneapolis, St. P. & S. St. M. Ry. Co., (Minn., 1920) In ''Rogers v. Bromac Title Servs. LLC'', the U.S. 5th Circuit interpreted the language of the Jury System Improvement Act in prohibiting employers from terminating employees "by reason of" jury service as meaning "but-for" causation: the employee must show that the termination of employment would not have occurred “but for” that jury service. This is a higher burden for the plaintiff employee than merely showing that the jury service was a motivating factor for the termination.〔http://www.shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/jury-service-but-for-causation.aspx〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「sine qua non」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|