Tortscausationbut for teststatistical probabilitytyphoidcausationmultiple possible causesreasonable certainty
Facts
The city supplied potable water through its Hemlock system and nonpotable river water through its Holly system for fire purposes. Near Brown Street bridge, city employees opened both systems, and because no check valve was in the Hemlock pipe, polluted Holly water from the Genesee River entered the Hemlock mains and contaminated drinking water in that neighborhood. Plaintiff worked about a block from the bridge, drank only Hemlock water at work, and became ill with typhoid fever on September 6, 1910. Medical testimony, evidence of contamination, and proof that many other people in the affected district who drank the water also developed typhoid were introduced at trial.
Issue
Was the plaintiff's proof legally sufficient to allow a jury to infer that his typhoid fever was caused by the city's negligently contaminated water supply, even though typhoid can arise from several possible causes? Must the plaintiff exclude every other possible source of infection before the case may go to the jury?
Rule
When two or more possible causes exist, only one of which would make the defendant liable, the plaintiff need not disprove every other possible cause. It is enough if the plaintiff establishes facts from which it can be said with reasonable certainty that the direct cause of the injury was the one for which the defendant was liable, so that the verdict rests on reasonable inferences rather than mere conjecture.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Toledo, a municipal water department negligently allowed untreated canal water to enter a residential drinking-water line serving a cluster of apartment buildings. Lena Ortiz drank that tap water every day at work in the affected zone, several nearby residents who drank from the same line developed dysentery within weeks, and two physicians testified that contaminated water was the likely source of Lena's illness, although the disease can also be spread by food and person-to-person contact.
At the close of Lena's case, the city moves to dismiss, arguing that she did not prove her illness could not have come from any other possible source. How should the court rule?
Explanation. The majority rule is that when several possible causes exist, only one of which would make the defendant liable, the plaintiff need not disprove every other possibility. It is enough to present facts from which a factfinder can say with reasonable certainty that the direct cause was the one attributable to the defendant. Here, actual contamination, Lena's regular consumption, nearby similar illnesses, and expert testimony together support a reasonable inference rather than conjecture, so dismissal would be improper.