Elan v. Tate

“To prove that the defendant’s negligence caused a particular injury, ‘the evidence must be sufficient to establish that such a causal relationship is reasonably probable and for this purpose, testimony that an injurious consequence is “possible,” rather than “probable,” is not sufficient.’” Feist v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 267 Or 402, 407, 517 P2d 675 (1973).

Defendant appealed judgment awarding Plaintiff economic and noneconomic damages. Defendant assigned error to the trial court’s jury instructions for “permanent injury” and use of mortality tables. On appeal, Defendant argued that there had been insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff suffered a permanent injury. In response, Plaintiff argued that there was sufficient evidence. “To prove that the defendant’s negligence caused a particular injury, ‘the evidence must be sufficient to establish that such a causal relationship is reasonably probable and for this purpose, testimony that an injurious consequence is “possible,” rather than “probable,” is not sufficient.’” Feist v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 267 Or 402, 407, 517 P2d 675 (1973). The Court held that there was insufficient evidence in the record to establish the requisite causal relationship. Reversed.