Kafker
BOSTON (Legal Newsline) – Deciding whether something was a “substantial factor” in causing harm, a favorite method of plaintiffs lawyers, is too confusing, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has ruled.
Justice Scott Kafker and his colleagues ruled Feb. 26 to instead instruct courts to use the “but-for” test for causation in negligence lawsuits, rejecting pleas by medical malpractice lawyers in a lawsuit that resulted in a defense verdict.
The case drew the attention of both the Massachusetts Academy of Trial Attorneys and the Massachusetts Defense Lawyers Association. The plaintiffs in it argued negligent treatment, including the use of a progesterone cream blamed for blood clots, led to a pulmonary embolism that killed Laura Doull, but the jury found that negligence was not a cause of it.