In what scenario is a plaintiff not required to prove general or specific causation?

In tort law, general causation refers to whether a certain type of conduct could cause a particular type of injury, while specific causation is about whether that particular conduct did cause the specific injury at issue. In cases involving certain diseases or injuries, particularly those linked to specific substances, plaintiffs may not need to prove general or specific causation due to what's known as "signature diseases."

When a disease is recognized as a classic result of exposure to a particular substance, the law allows for a presumption of causation. For example, if a plaintiff develops a lung disease that is medically established as being caused by exposure to asbestos, the plaintiff may not need to prove in detail that the exposure caused their specific illness. The established link allows the court to presume that the exposure led to the disease, relieving the plaintiff of the burden to establish causation in the typical way.

In this context, the other scenarios provided typically require some form of causation proof. Clear evidence of negligence does not negate the need for proving causation; negligence must still lead to injury. Medical malpractice generally involves proving both negligent behavior and causation, and intervening causes can complicate matters of causation, often necessitating a detailed analysis to determine how they affect the original act and