| Venue: | US Ct. App. 2nd Cir |
| Facts: | Mrs. Zuchowicz was negligently given a very high dose of Danocrine. Then she got primary pulmonary hypertension, which is rare. Then she gets pregnant, which exacerbates the condition. Then, after giving birth, she dies. |
| Posture: | Judgment for plaintiff at trial. Defendant appeals on the admissibility and sufficiency of expert testimony. |
| Issue: | Did the actions for which the defendant is responsible cause the plaintiff's injury? |
| Holding: | The court's finding was appropriate. Affirmed. |
| Rule: | If a negligent act is wrongful because it increases the chances of some particular harmful event, and then that very thing comes to pass, it's reasonable for a trier of fact to infer causation, and it's up to the defendant to rebut the presumption that the wrongful conduct was a substantial cause. |
| Reasoning: | This is a tough one, because there can be no epidemiological data:
the disease is rare and so is overdosage on this drug. The
experts made a decent case, though. Daubert identifies
the following criteria:
The fact finder has to be able to conclude that the overdose was the cause of her injury: we've alreay shown there was negligence. The post hoc ergo propter hoc nature of the argument is (apparently) OK because everyone knows that drugs have side-effects and that overdoses have worse side-effects. |
| Dicta: | |