Opinion ID: 2175808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Proximate Cause Generally

Text: Delaware's common law has traditionally recognized that there may be more than one proximate cause of an injury. Culver v. Bennett, 588 A.2d at 1097. Thus, in an action based upon negligence against multiple defendants, the liability of a particular defendant is not dependent upon a showing that the defendant's conduct was the exclusive cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Id. [5] Nevertheless, in a negligence action involving numerous defendants, the plaintiff is required to establish that the negligence of each defendant was a proximate cause of the injury which the plaintiff has suffered. Id. The issue of proximate cause is ordinarily a question of fact to be submitted to the jury. Culver v. Bennett, 588 A.2d at 1098. However, before the question of proximate cause may be submitted to the jury, the plaintiff is required to establish a prima facie case on that issue. It is permissible for a plaintiff to make a prima facie case that a defendant's conduct was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries, based upon an inference from the plaintiff's competent evidence, if such a finding relates to a matter which is within a lay person's scope of knowledge. Compare Chudnofsky v. Edwards, Del. Supr., 208 A.2d 516, 518 (1965). However, [i]f the matter in issue is one within the knowledge of experts only and not within the common knowledge of laymen, it is necessary for the plaintiff to introduce expert testimony in order to establish a prima facie case. M.S. Madden, Products Liability 533 (2nd ed. 1988). See Mountaire of Delmarva, Inc. v. Glacken, Del. Supr., 487 A.2d 1137, 1141 (1984); Weiner v. Wisniewski, Del.Supr., 213 A.2d 857, 858 (1965); Laskowski v. Wallis, Del.Supr., 205 A.2d 825, 826 (1964).