Kimberley Hoff 13 Oct 2012 PAR 116 Negligence Causation Trying to prove a school shooting was caused by a violent

t movie is a challenging proposition. In order to establish causation, the firm will have to meet either the "but-for" test--showing that without the movie the shooting never would have happened1--or the substantial factor test--showing that without the movie the shooting would not have resulted in Michael' being shot2--and in both cases the burden of proof is on the plaintiff. The firm would need evidence that the perpetrators did not begin planning their rampage until after they saw the film and/or that they were trying to replicate specific violent acts depicted in the movie. Once a causal link was established, the firm would have to address the proximate cause issue as well, showing that the makers of Teenage Stalkers should have been able to foresee the possibility of audience members imitating the acts of violence depicted onscreen and thus had a duty to take action to prevent copycats3. This would be even harder to prove than a general causal link, as a movie company is normally not liable for the current actions of millions of unknown individuals who have at some point watched their films and been influenced by them, possibly years later and in totally unexpected waysthis is practically a textbook definition of remoteness undermining causality3. What would likely be required to establish sufficient proximate cause would be some exceptional degree of negligence that might reasonably be construed as aiding copycat attacks, such as overly detailed instructions on how to block fire doors to prevent people from escaping4. The firm could likewise attempt to establish that the dangerous ambitions of certain hardcore fans should have been known to the movie company for some reason, perhaps because of threatening postings on the forum of Teenage Stalkers' official website5. This is made somewhat easier by the fact that the perpetrators were minors and producers of consumer goods such as movies have a higher standard of care where children are concerned, as they do not have the same capability for reasonable caution as an adult6. No matter how you look at it, this is a case that would be hard to prove even to the standard of preponderance of the evidence, and would likely fall apart due to intervening causes7. There were likely many intervening acts of negligence that more proximately contributed to Michael's death, such as failures of faculty to report behavioral red flags displayed by the perpetrators before the shooting, failure of the owner of the guns used to secure his weapons properly, and failure of school security personnel to detect and intercept the guns before they used. The school also owes a very high standard of care to its students as it is acting in loco parentis when they are in attendance8. These intervening causes make suing the movie company much less likely to bear fruit than suing the school district, even if the movie company is the substantially deeper pocket.

1 2

Ontiveros v. Borak, 667 P.2d 200 [Ariz. 1983]. Corey v. Havener, 65 NE 69 [Mass. 1902]. 3 Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail Co., 162 NE 99 [NY 1928].
4

Campbell, Tara C. Did Video Games Train the School Shooters to Kill?: Determining Whether the Wisconsin Courts Should Impose Negligence or Strict Liability in a Lawsuit Against the Video Game Manufacturers. Marquette Law Review 84(4), 811-844, 2001. 5 th Eimann v. Soldier of Fortune Magazine, Inc., 880 F.2d 830 [5 Cir. 1989]. 6 Keller v. Welles Department Store, 276 NW 2d 319 [1978].
7 8

Restatement [Second] of Torts, 441[1].

Dr Lr Lr 91-1136 v. Middle Bucks Area Vocational Technical School, 972 F.2 1364 [1992].