Custom plays a role in establishing due care, but it is not conclusive level of expectation of safety features expectation of behavior notion of collective wisdom feasibility of conduct statutory violation may be negligence per se if it is factual and legal cause of the accident. This has the important effect of keeping out weak cases, since juries are often predisposed to rule for P. General move toward probability based approach. Don't have to remove all possible causes of a disease, just have to show with reasonable certainty that D was cause. Loss of a substantial opportunity to survive may be compensable based on a proportion of a wrongful death award. Increased risk of a disease is not compensable generally, because of desire to save money for those who actually get it, other policies under V. multiple defendants - list and briefly explain each, briefly discuss why or why not each one applies The old joint and several rule of liability is slowly being abolished in favor of right to contribution under state statutes.
Comparative fault is also on the rise.
Alternative liability - when P can show that each of two Ds was negligent, but only one could have caused the injury, the burden shifts to each D to show the other caused the injury. Summers v. Tice shotgun case. Substantial factor test - in cases where two negligent acts combine to produce a result where either one would have sufficed, D will be held liable if his negligence was a substantial factor in producing the harm. The Steinhauser court ruled that precipitating schizophrenia in a prepsychotic person constitutes legal cause, but doesn't merit the same compensation as causing a disease in one not predisposed to it. Simpler and fairer to use same foreseeability test for legal cause as for negligence.