Hey, everyone, welcome back. You know, law school, right?
It feels like you're always trying to keep up with all these
new legal concepts. And it can be a lot.
Oh. Absolutely.
It can definitely feel overwhelming.
Well, today we're tackling a concept that's not just
important for torts and criminal law, but really for, like, every
area of law. Yeah.
Causation. Yeah, you got it.
Causation. It might seem pretty simple at
first glance, but trust me, it gets really complicated.
And for anyone who wants to be a lawyer, understanding how
causation works is key. And we're talking about doing
well in law school, passing the bar exam, and just building a
really solid base for your legal career.
So let's break it down. When we talk about causation in
law, what exactly are we talking about?
Basically, we're talking about the connection between an
action, or, you know, in action and the harm that comes after.
Like if the harm wouldn't have happened without the defendant
doing something or not doing something, then you've got
causation. This is what's called factual
causation. So it's about proving that
direct link between an action and its consequences.
Yeah, like an unbroken chain of events.
Exactly. Think of it like a chain
reaction. You know, to prove causation,
you've got to show that whole chain, how one event led to the
next led to the harm. Our sources use a couple of
examples that make this crystal clear, like the classic case of
a driver running a red light. Right.
If that driver causes a crash and someone's hurt, it's usually
pretty obvious. But for them running that red
light, the injuries wouldn't have happened.
It's pretty straightforward. And they give another example,
this one from criminal law. Say someone starts a fire and
then tragically someone dies in that fire.
Yeah, in that case, the prosecution would have to prove
beyond a reasonable to doubt that the victim would still be
alive if it weren't for the person who set the fire.
That direct link is super important to prove.
Now, what about those cases where it's not just one person
or one event that led to the harm?
Like what if there are multiple factors at play?
That's where it gets a little more complicated for sure.
You're talking about something called concurrent causation.
Basically, it recognizes that sometimes multiple actions can
come together to cause harm, even if each action on its own
like wouldn't have been enough. Our sources use the example of
pollution. Let's say there are two
factories, and they're both dumping waste into a river.
That pollution then harms the environment downstream.
Exactly. It's tough to say for sure which
factory alone caused all the harm, but with this idea of
concurrent causation, they could both be held responsible because
their actions, you know, together led to the problem.
Got it. So it's not about trying to
figure out who caused the most harm, but just acknowledging
that both contributed to the bad outcome.
Precisely. Concurrent causation helps make
sure that someone is held accountable even when it's tough
to say exactly who did what. That makes sense.
OK, so we've talked about factual causation.
What about this other key element of causation, proximate
causation? This one seems a lot less
straightforward. Absolutely.
Proximate causation is all about foreseeability.
You have to ask, was the harm that happened a foreseeable
result of what the defendant did?
It's not just enough that their actions played a part, the harm
has to be something that a reasonable person you know could
have seen coming. So it's like saying, OK, maybe
you started this whole chain reaction, but could you have
realistically predicted that it would lead to this specific
outcome? Exactly.
Let me give you an example. Imagine someone throws a rock
and breaks a window. Pretty direct and sourceable,
right? But what if that broken window
scares a bird, and that bird then flies into a cyclist,
causing an accident? OK, yeah, I see where you're
going with this. Yeah, the person who threw the
rock might have technically been the first domino to fall, but it
would be pretty tough to say. They could have foreseen the
whole cyclist thing happening as a result.
Exactly. That's where proximate causation
steps in. The law doesn't hold people
responsible for absolutely everything that could possibly
happen as a result of what they do, only for the things that are
like, reasonably foreseeable. This reminds me of that super
famous law school case Paul's Graph V Long Island Railroad.
Our sources talk about it too. It's all about this wild chain
of events and that whole idea of foreseeability.
Oh, Paul's graph, right? It's classic for a reason, and I
think every law student remembers it because it shows
just how tricky proximate causation can get.
So for anyone who hasn't heard about it, a passenger is trying
to board a train with a package of fireworks, and one of the
railroad employees tries to help him.
Well, the package falls, the fireworks go off, and all that
chaos causes a heavy scale at the other end of the platform to
fall and injure Missus Paul's graph, who was just like
standing there. It's a wild sequence of events,
totally. But the court ended up saying
that the railroad wasn't liable for Missus Pop Graf's injuries
because they weren't a foreseeable result of what the
employee did. It's hard to imagine that
helping someone with a package would lead to a scale falling on
someone all the way across the platform.
So Paul's graph is like the perfect example of how even if
there's a clear chain of events, proving proximate causation
means you have to show that the harm was a reasonably
predictable outcome of the defendant's actions.
It really highlights how important that concept of
foreseeability is in figuring out who's legally responsible.
Exactly. Proximate causation helps make
sure that liability is fair and just, considering not just what
did happen, but what was reasonably foreseeable.
OK, now let's look at how these principles actually work in
specific areas of law. Let's start with tort law.
So in tort law, we're talking about those civil wrongs, like
negligence. To prove someone was negligent,
you have to show four things. They had a duty, they breached
that duty, their actions caused harm, and there were actual
damages. Caugation is that key link
between someone messing up and the actual harm that happened.
So even if someone did something wrong, you still have to prove
that what they did caused the harm you experienced.
You got it. And remember, we need both
factual and proximate causation. Factual shows their actions were
part of the chain and proximate ensures the harm was, you know,
a foreseeable result. Think of it like building a
bridge. Both types of causation are the
supports holding it up. Our sources give us an example
from medical malpractice, which is a good one.
Let's say a doctor makes a mistake during surgery and it
makes a patient's existing condition even worse.
Yeah, that's where concurrent causation could definitely come
in. The doctor's negligence might
not be the only reason the patient's worse off, but it
definitely played a part, along with whatever condition they
already had. So the original cause of the
condition and the doctor could both be held liable.
Exactly, and this idea of shared responsibility can get even more
complex when you add in intervening and superseding
causes. OK.
Now those are some important terms.
Can you break those down for us? Think of an intervening cause
like a detour on the way to the harm.
It happens after the defendant does whatever they did, and it
adds to the harm, but it doesn't totally break the chain of
causation. So imagine someone you know
leaves a banana peel on the floor being careless.
Someone slips on it and they break their wrist.
Right, that makes. Sense.
Now picture this while that person is waiting to get help.
A ceiling fan like malfunctions and falls down and hurts their
leg too. That falling fan is an
intervening 'cause it made the harm worse, but it doesn't erase
that original negligence of leaving the banana peel there.
Got it. So what's a superseding 'cause
then? That's a whole different ball
game. It's such a random,
unpredictable event that it completely wipes out that chain
of causation. Let's go back to our banana
peel. Let's say while the person is
waiting, an earthquake hits a wall, falls down and hurts them
even more. Wow, that's intense.
So that earthquake would be a superseding cause.
Exactly. It's so extraordinary, so
unforeseeable, that whoever left the banana peel isn't liable for
anything that happened because of the earthquake.
The law gets that it wouldn't be fair to hold someone responsible
for something like an act of God.
This is making a lot more sense now.
So how does all this work in criminal law, where the stakes
are even higher? The main ideas are similar, but
in criminal cases it's way harder to prove.
Prosecutors have to prove causation beyond a reasonable
doubt. Think of something like
manslaughter, where someone is driving recklessly and they
cause a fatal accident. OK, so we've got someone
speeding, weaving through traffic, and ultimately someone
dies. What would the prosecution have
to prove to establish causation? They'd have to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt both factual and proximate causation.
For factual, they'd have to show the death wouldn't have
happened, but for the reckless driving, proximate causation
means showing the death was a foreseeable result of that
reckless driving. So it's not just about showing
they were breaking the law, it's about connecting those actions
directly to the death with like 0 room for doubt.
Exactly. And just like in tort law,
things can get more complicated when you've got intervening
acts. What if someone gets punched in
a fight, falls and hits their head?
They die a few days later, but not directly from the punch.
The actual cause of death is like complications from
negligent medical treatment. So the question is whether the
person who threw the punch is still responsible even though
the medical treatment was bad. It is, yeah.
And here's where foreseeability comes back in.
Was it foreseeable that the punch would lead to someone
needing medical treatment, and that there was a chance that
treatment could be negligent? That's a tricky.
One, it really seems like causation is rarely a simple yes
or no answer. There are just so many nuances
to consider, especially when you've got those intervening
acts or multiple things contributing to the harm.
Absolutely, and that's what makes these cases so interesting
and often pretty tough. Real life situations are never
as neat and tidy as what we talked about in law school.
And Speaking of real life complications, our sources
mentioned that proving causation can be super difficult in cases
involving environmental damage, toxic torts, and situations
where it's just hard to say exactly who's responsible.
Yeah, those are the kind of cases that really make you think
hard about how we understand causation.
Imagine a whole community where people have been exposed to
pollution from lots of different places over many years, and now
they're getting sick. Oh wow.
Yeah, it would be almost impossible to say for sure which
specific thing caused each person's illness, or even which
company is to blame. It'd be like trying to find, I
don't know, a specific drop of water back to its source in the
ocean. Great analogy.
And that's the kind of challenge that lawyers and scientists face
in these environmental cases. They have to rely on statistics,
studies of how diseases spread and expert opinions just to try
and show a link between the pollution and the harm.
So what happens when you just can't say for sure exactly where
the harm came from? Even with all that evidence, our
sources mentioned something called market share liability.
Oh yeah, that's a really cool legal idea that came out of a
landmark case, Syndell V Abbott Laboratories.
The case was about this drug DES, which doctors used to give
to pregnant women to prevent miscarriages.
Turns out it ended up causing cancer in their daughters later
on. The problem was tons of
companies were making DES so the women couldn't tell which
company made the pills their mothers took.
So how did the court deal with that?
It wouldn't be fair to let all the companies off the hook just
because no one could trace the harm back to one specific
source. Right, totally.
So they came up with this idea, market share liability.
They said each company was responsible for a portion of the
damages based on how much of the DES market they controlled back
then. So if a company sold, say, 20%
of the DES, they'd have to pay 20% of the damages even if there
was no direct proof that their pills caused the harm.
Exactly. It was this groundbreaking
solution to make sure that victims got some compensation
even when the usual rules of causation were like, impossible
to follow. It's kind of amazing how the
legal system can change and adapt to these really complex
issues and find ways to ensure justice even in situations where
it seems impossible. It really is.
It shows how creative legal minds can be and how important
it is to keep pursuing fairness and making sure someone's held
accountable. We've covered a ton today, from
the basic ideas behind causation to some really nuanced examples
and important court decisions. We have, but there's still more
to dive into. Welcome back everyone.
Ready to jump back into causation?
Definitely great. Let's focus on a specific area
where causation is super important, medical malpractice.
These cases can get pretty complex, especially when you
start dealing with medical evidence and expert witnesses.
Oh yeah, I remember when I first started learning about medical
malpractice in law school. It was a little intimidating to
be honest. Sometimes it feels like you need
a medical degree on top of your law degree just to keep up.
I know what you mean, it can feel like you're learning a
whole new language. But the important thing is, even
in these really complex cases, the same basic principles of
causation still apply. You still have to show that the
harm wouldn't have happened but for the healthcare providers
negligence. So it's not enough to just say a
doctor messed up, you have to actually prove that their
mistake caused the patient's injury or made their condition
worse. You got it.
Let's say, for example, a patient has surgery and ends up
with a really bad infection. You can't just point to the
infection and say, look, something obviously went wrong.
You have to actually prove that the infection happened because
the surgeon was negligent. Maybe they didn't follow proper
procedures to keep things sterile, or maybe they messed up
with the antibiotics. So you have to connect the dots,
show that the negligence directly led to the harm.
Exactly, and a lot of times this means you need expert testimony
from other medical professionals.
They can explain what the standard of care is supposed to
be, look over medical records, and give their professional
opinion on whether the defendant actually messed up.
It's like you need someone to translate between the legal
world and the medical world. That's a great way to put it.
Things can get even trickier when the patient already had a
condition that might have also played a role in the harm.
Like imagine a patient who has a heart condition, goes in for a
routine procedure, and then bam, they have a heart attack during
the procedure. So in a case like that, you'd
have to figure out if the heart attack would have happened
anyway, even without the procedure.
Right. The court would need to look at
everything really carefully and decide if what the healthcare
provider did was a substantial factor in causing the heart
attack, even though the patient was already at higher risk
because of their heart condition.
It's like trying to figure out which domino and a whole line of
dominoes was the one that actually tipped everything over.
Exactly, and that's another reason why expert testimony is
so crucial in these cases. Experts can help the court
really understand the connection or lack of connection between
the pre-existing condition, the medical procedure and what
ultimately happened to the patient.
Now, our sources mentioned this idea called the loss of chance
doctrine, which seems especially important in medical malpractice
cases where a delayed diagnosis or a wrong diagnosis might have
cost the patient precious time and treatment options.
Oh yeah, the loss of chance doctrine.
It's a really interesting legal idea.
It basically says that even if negligence doesn't directly lead
to someone dying or getting injured, it can still cause
harm. It's about the loss of a chance
for a better outcome. Like, think about a Doctor Who
misses a cancer diagnosis early on.
By the time they catch it, it's way more advanced and the
patient's chances of survival have plummeted.
So even though the doctor didn't cause the cancer, their
negligence took away the patient's chance to get
treatment when it would have been most effective.
Precisely the loss of chance doctor and let's patients get
damages for that lost opportunity, even if they can't
prove for sure that they would have definitely survived if the
diagnosis had been made earlier. So it's not just about physical
harm, it's also about the loss of hope and the potential for
things to have turned out differently.
Exactly. It acknowledges that medical
negligence can have consequences that go way beyond just the
immediate physical harm. I think it's time to talk about
some of the big cases that have really shaped our understanding
of medical malpractice. Our sources talk about Barnett V
Chelsea and Kensington Hospital, which seems like a really good
example. Ah, yes, Barnett, it's a classic
case and it really highlights the importance of that.
But for test we talked about so in Barnett this guy goes to the
hospital after drinking tea that was get this laced with arsenic.
The hospital staff didn't examine him properly and sent
him home. Sadly, he died from arsenic
poisoning. So at first glance it seems like
a pretty clear cut case. The hospital messed up and the
patient died. There's a twist, right?
There is. It turned out that even if the
hospital had done everything right, the guy still would have
died from the arsenic poisoning. He just drank way too much of
it. Oh wow, so even though the
hospital was negligent, it didn't actually change the final
outcome? Exactly.
The court said that the man's death would happened anyway
regardless of what the hospital did, so they weren't liable.
Barnett shows us that even when it seems obvious that someone
was negligent, you still have to prove causation.
It really drives on the point that the butt Ford test isn't
just some legal technicality, it's there to make sure things
are fair and that no one's held responsible unless their actions
truly made a difference. It is, Barnett teaches us, to
look beyond the surface and really analyze whether the
negligence was a substantial factor in what happened.
Now let's switch gears a bit and talk about another landmark case
Wagon Mound number one, that's had a huge impact on how we
understand proximate causation. This one involves a ship, an oil
spill, and a pretty surprising legal outcome.
Right, Wagon mound #1 it's a classic case for a reason, and
it helps us understand the idea of foreseeability and negligence
cases. So picture this.
A ship spills oil into a harbor in Sydney, Australia.
The oil spreads all over and reaches a Wharf where, wouldn't
you know it, they're doing some welding.
Sparks from the welding ignite the oil and boom.
Big fire. Major damage to the Wharf and
other ships. OK, so a negligent oil spill
leads to a fire and a lot of property damage.
Seems pretty straightforward, right?
Somebody should be held responsible.
You'd think so, but this is where foreseeability comes in.
At the time, people didn't really know that oil could catch
fire on water like that under those conditions.
So even though the ship owners were negligent in spilling the
oil, it's not like they could have predicted that it would
lead to a fire and all that damage.
So the court basically said, yeah, you messed up, but you
couldn't have known that that specific thing would happen.
Exactly. The court said that the fire
wasn't a foreseeable consequence of the oil spill, so the ship
owners weren't liable for the fire damage.
Wagon mound #1 established this really important principle.
You're only responsible for the consequences of your actions
that are foreseeable, not for every single thing that could
possibly happen. That makes sense.
It means you're not on the hook for every crazy, unpredictable
thing that might result from your actions, only the things
that a reasonable person could have anticipated.
Right. It helps prevent people from
being held liable for absolutely everything, especially when
you've got these long, complicated chains of events.
It keeps the law fair and proportionate, holding people
accountable for what they could have reasonably foreseen.
It's amazing how much legal thinking has evolved over time
and how cases like these have really shaped our understanding
of these complicated causation issues.
It's great for anyone who's studying law to really dig into
these cases. They really do.
They show us that it's so important not to jump to
conclusions, to look at all the details in each case, and to
understand that the rules of causation can work differently
depending on the situation. Law is rarely black and white,
especially when it comes to causation.
And Speaking of Gray areas, I want to go back to something we
touched on earlier, the eggshell skull rule.
It's always stuck with me because it says a lot about like
the ethical side of our legal system.
Yeah, the eggshell skull rule is definitely a thought provoking
one. It basically says that you take
your victim as you find them, so even if someone has a
pre-existing condition that makes them more likely to be
injured, you're still responsible for the full extent
of the harm you caused. So like if someone has really
brittle bones and I bump into them, they break a bone.
Even though someone else might have only gotten a bruise, I'm
still responsible for that broken bone.
That's right, the eggshell skull rule keeps people from getting
away with something just because the person they harmed was more
fragile than average. It's about recognizing that
justice shouldn't depend on how tough someone is.
It's like saying you can't discriminate against someone
just because they're more delicate.
You have to own up to the full consequences of what you did,
even if those consequences were worse because of something you
couldn't control. That's a really good way to
think about it. The eggshell skull rule shows
that everyone deserves equal protection under the law, no
matter what conditions or vulnerabilities they might have.
It's a powerful message for sure.
It says that justice should be fair and equal for everyone, and
that the person who caused the harm should be held responsible
no matter the specific circumstances of the person they
harm. It all comes back to fairness
and accountability, which are essential parts of our legal
system. It also reminds us that law
isn't just about following rules, it's about upholding
values and protecting everyone's rights.
Now, before we move on, I want to touch on something else
that's super important how causation connects with public
policy. Our sources point out that these
causation rules aren't just these random legal ideas.
They reflect and influence what we as a society want to achieve.
That's a crucial point. When we think about causation,
it's not just about individual cases, it's about how those
cases affect society as a whole. So it's not just about saying
who's to blame in a specific situation, it's about thinking
about the big picture and how our decisions about causation
can shape people's behavior and the world we live.
In exactly, take joint and several liability for example.
We see this a lot in environmental cases where you
have multiple polluters contributing to the problem.
OK, so if you've got like a bunch of companies dumping waste
into a river, they could all be held responsible for the
environmental damage, even if we can't say for sure how much each
company contributed. Right.
And the thinking behind that is that it makes companies take
Environmental Protection more seriously and encourages them to
work together to minimize the harm.
Like if you pollute, you're all responsible, period.
It really emphasizes a shared responsibility for protecting
the environment. Absolutely.
Drain and several liability is just one example of how we use
causation to achieve bigger goals, like protecting the
environment or public health. It's a way for the legal system
to promote good behavior and protect the common good.
It shows that the law isn't just about resolving conflicts, it's
about actively working to create a better future.
It's about finding that balance between holding people
accountable and also thinking about the long term consequences
of legal decisions. It's a delicate balance for
sure, but it's crucial for having a legal system that's
both fair and effective. And as you move forward in your
legal careers, it's something to keep in mind as you tackle
causation and all these different areas of law all.
Right. Welcome back.
We've talked about a lot with causation, but there's still a
few more areas of law I want to touch on where these ideas are
super relevant. Sounds good.
Let's do it. OK, so let's dive into products
liability. This is another area where
proving causation can get really tricky.
We're talking about situations where a defective product harm
someone. Right products liability.
Definitely a challenging area when it comes to causation.
Like if I buy a blender and the first time I use it, the blade
flies off and hurts me. It seems pretty obvious that the
blender was defective and caused the injury, but what happens
when it's not so clear? What if it could have been user
error or something else entirely?
That's when it gets tough. In these cases, you have to
think about all the possible causes.
You know, design defects, manufacturing flaws, bad
labeling, even failing to warn people about potential dangers.
It's like a detective trying to solve the case.
So you might have to like reconstruct accidents, test
different parts of the product, even talk to experts in
engineering or manufacturing. Exactly, and to nail down
causation you have to show that the defect was a substantial
factor in causing the harm. And even if a product is
defective, the company that made it might not be liable if the
harm wasn't something they could have foreseen, right?
Right. They could definitely argue
that, yeah. But whether that works depends
on things like, you know, what's normal in that industry, if
there have been similar incidents with that product and
if there were safer ways to design it.
So it all comes down to what a reasonable manufacturer would
have known or done in that situation.
That's where things like legal precedents and industry
standards come in, right? Definitely.
Products liability is a mix of legal ideas, industry norms, and
scientific evidence, and they're usually lots of different
parties involved. The manufacturer, the
distributor, the store that sold it, even the consumer.
It's not as simple as just pointing fingers at one company.
It makes you think, you know. Causation isn't just this
theoretical thing we learned about in law school.
It has real consequences for companies and people in the real
world. It does, absolutely.
Let's move on to environmental law now.
This is another area where proving causation is often
incredibly difficult. We're talking about pollution,
hazardous waste, anything that could harm the environment or
people's health. Right, those big class action
lawsuits about oil spills, contaminated water, exposure to
toxic chemicals, that kind of thing.
Yeah, those cases, it's got to be super hard to pinpoint the
exact source of the harm, especially with something like
air pollution, which can spread so far.
How do you even begin to connect a specific polluter to the harm?
It's a huge challenge, no doubt. Imagine a scenario where you
have several factories along a river all releasing pollutants
and downstream people start getting sick.
How do you know which factory or if anyone factory is to blame?
It's like a giant puzzle where the pieces are spread out over
time and space and there could be multiple culprits.
I like that, and that's why in environmental cases you often
have to rely on those big epidemiological studies, data
about air and water quality, and those really complex models to
try to connect the pollution to the harm.
It sounds like this area of law requires not only legal skills,
but also a deep understanding of environmental science.
You'd have to be comfortable with things like toxicology and
statistics too, right? Oh yeah, for sure.
It's highly specialized. And a lot of times these cases
drag on forever, costing tons of money because the companies
involved have all these resources to fight back, to
challenge the scientific evidence and say that something
else caused the harm. But for people who really care
about environmental justice, it's really important work.
It's about holding polluters accountable and protecting
communities and the environment. It just shows how powerful these
causation principles can be, how they can be used to create a
healthier, more sustainable world.
They can. OK, ready for one more area of
law where causation is central? Absolutely hit me with it.
Let's talk about workplace accidents and those workers
compensation claims. This is something that affects a
lot of people and understanding causation is crucial for both
workers and employers. Yeah, I interned at a firm that
specialized in those cases when I was in law school, and I saw
how complicated they can get. What are some of the trickiest
things about causation in those cases?
Well, the main thing to remember is that in workers compensation
cases, it's not about proving that the employer did something
wrong. The big question is whether the
employee got hurt while doing their job.
Was it work related? So like if I'm at work in an
office and I slip on a wet floor and break my ankle, they'd
usually assume that happened because I was at work, even if
no one was specifically to blame for the wet floor.
Yeah, that's typically how it works.
But of course there are exceptions, like if the employee
was drunk or high, or if they intentionally did something
wrong, or if they got hurt doing something totally unrelated to
their job, then they might not get workers comp.
Got it. So there's this assumption that
injuries at work are work related, unless you could prove
otherwise. Right.
But it can be way more complicated when you're talking
about those occupational diseases that people develop
over time, like from being exposed to dangerous substances.
Oh right, like a construction worker who gets lung cancer
after years of breathing in asbestos on the job.
Exactly. In those cases you have to prove
that they got sick because of the exposure at work and not
because of something else like smoking.
These cases often involve a lot of medical experts, specialists
in workplace safety, and tons of analysis of the work environment
and safety procedures. It sounds like a very detailed
process of piercing together evidence and making a strong
case to connect the dock between what happened at work and the
illness. It is, and it's crucial to have
thorough investigations, good record keeping and those expert
opinions to back everything up. Well, I think we've covered a
ton today. We've looked at causation in so
many different legal situations. It's definitely one of those
fundamental legal concepts that pops up everywhere.
It really is, and as we've talked about, it's often tied to
these really complicated situations, scientific evidence,
and how society's values are changing.
It shows that being a good lawyer isn't just about
memorizing a bunch of rules. It's about being able to think
critically, analyze situations carefully, and understand how
those legal principles apply in messy, real world situations.
Couldn't agree more. And as you all continue your
legal journey, it's so important to keep asking questions,
challenging what you think you know, and working to make the
legal system and the world a better place.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
That's a great way to wrap things up.
We've really gone deep on causation today, looking at all
its twists and turns, how complex it can be, and how it
shapes the legal world. I hope this deep dive has given
you a good understanding of these really important ideas and
that it's made you want to keep learning about the law.
Absolutely. This is just the beginning.
So keep learning, keep exploring, and keep pushing
yourselves to be the best lawyers you can be.
Thanks for joining us for this deep dive into causation.
We'll catch you next time for another exciting exploration of
the League Eagle world.