Well, just great! In my medical school malpractice class I was taught that you needed three things to lose.
1. negligence
2. proximate cause and
3. actual damage.

Now according to this case by the NJ supreme court step 2 is gone and its not neccessary to prove that what you did actually caused the harm. It just has to be vaguely related to what you did. I'm almost more mad at my school for wasting my time learning this legal theory crap when clearly malpractice judgments have absolutely nothing to do with it. For crying out loud if the supreme court doesn't even care about proximate cause, what laws would an ordinary jury care about. I'll tell you. None at all. [extreme bitterness]