226 N.Y. 516 (1919)
Stubbs v. City of Rochester is a landmark case in American tort law primarily examining the complexities of proving causation in negligence cases involving public health hazards.
Whether the plaintiff must eliminate all other possible causes beyond the defendant's negligence to satisfy the burden of proof for causation in a negligence action.
In negligence actions, a plaintiff must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant's conduct was the proximate cause of the injury, but does not have to eliminate all other possible causes beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court held that a plaintiff is not required to conclusively eliminate all other potential causes of their injury to succeed on the issue of causation, provided there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support the claim that the defendant's negligence was more likely the cause than not.
Stubbs v. City of Rochester is significant in tort law as it clarifies the standard for proving causation when multiple potential causes exist. This decision laid the groundwork for subsequent judgements on circumstantial evidence and demonstrated a practical approach to determining liability in complex public health-related negligence cases. The case is frequently studied for its contribution to understanding proximate cause and the necessary burden of proof required in negligence claims.