In Staub as Trustee of Weeks v. Myrtle Lake Resort, the Minnesota Supreme Court recently heldthat, in the absence of an alternate theory of causation, a negligence claim supported solely by circumstantial evidence may survive summary judgment. Indeed, the Minnesota Supreme Court determined the plaintiff’s claim in Staub, although lacking certainty as to whether the defendants’ negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury, should have survived summary judgment. The Minnesota Supreme Court’s decision in Staub reaffirms its narrow stance on evaluating ambiguous causation by deferring to the capability of jury members to make reasonable inferences regarding claims of multiple plausible causes of injury. While the Staub holding may come as no surprise to Minnesota legal scholars, it once again raises questions about the court’s refusal to adopt a more liberal standard of proof in cases of undetermined causation. In future similar cases, the Minnesota Supreme Court might consider adopting an alternative method of evaluating ambiguous causation to provide a uniform framework for the convenience of lower courts, litigators, and dispute resolution specialists. While other jurisdictions have adopted methodologies to evaluate claims involving multiple plausible theories of causation—such as burden-shifting—there exists a structured list of factors by which the Minnesota Supreme Court may consistently examine these types of cases without compromising its practice of leaving causation to the factfinder.
In some cases, established tests (like the “but for” test for cause-in-fact or the “substantial factor” test for proximate cause) are inadequate to demonstrate that a defendant’s breach of care satisfies the causation element of a negligence claim. In these cases—involving an undetermined, uncertain, or ambiguous cause-in-fact—jurisdictions have developed and adopted differing approaches for granting or denying summary judgment. For purposes of this Case Note, the term “ambiguous causation” is employed to describe the scenario presented by these unique cases. Despite the relative infrequency of these cases, which depend on a “perfect storm” of facts, so-called ambiguous causation cases have played an important role in shaping the principles of tort law in the United States.
This Case Note begins with the history of negligence as a common law tort in the United States, and in particular, its application in Minnesota. Then, it discusses the elements of negligence, specifically focusing on cause-in-fact, proximate causation, and claims involving ambiguous causation. The facts and procedural posture in Staub follow. The analysis of this Case Note recognizes the Minnesota Supreme Court’s general adherence to a preponderance of the evidence standard in deciding cases involving ambiguous causation. This Case Note concludes by suggesting that an alternative approach to evaluating ambiguous causation need not affect the Minnesota Supreme Court’s holdings in future similar cases, but that such a uniform structure could foster better cohesiveness within the Minnesota legal system.