I'll repeat: the trial judge held that a but - for cause was not a legal but - for cause because it was
a a de minimis cause.
If we say that a necessary cause was
de minimis cause, we're saying (somehow) that whatever injury that cause has been found to have caused did not alter the injured person's «original position» in any legally material way.
Not exact matches
Liability is there for when you
cause damages to someone else that are beyond a
de minimis level that you could cover out of pocket.
A natural parent's consent is not required if the parent failed «without justifiable
cause to provide more than
de minimis contact with the children for at least a year immediately preceding the filing of the adoption petitions.»
In each case, the trial judge seems to have held that a prior event which was necessary for the occurrence of the injury — an event offered by the defendant as something which would have at least been a partial defence — was not a but - for
cause because its causal contribution was less than
de minimis.
The defendant's negligence need not be the sole
cause of the injury so long as it is part of the
cause beyond the
de minimis range.
[11] Thus, in applying the «but for» test, the trial judge was required to consider not just whether the defendant's conduct was the sole
cause of the plaintiff's disabling pain, but also whether the plaintiff had established a substantial connection between the accident and that pain, beyond the
de [
minimis] level.
Liability is there for when you
cause damages to someone else that are beyond a
de minimis level that you could cover out of pocket.