The Dred Scott case eventually led to the prohibition of slavery in territories, gutted Congress' ability to regulate slavery, gutted the Missouri compromise and led to armed confrontation in Kansas. All these were events that eventually led up to the Civil War. While war was likely inevitable, the Scott case accellerated it somewhat.
Union supporters didn't want war but to let the South leave in Peace, As Lincoln said we need to save the Union and delacred war on the Confederacy. And sent ships into the Charleston harbour and blocked of the Southern ports. Most Yankees wanted No war but lincoln started the most bloodiest war in America.
No one single person caused the Civil War. People like Dred Scott and their wishes were a large part of what caused it, but he can't be given a majority of the credit/blame. There were issues that were set to blow and they inevitably did, he's one of the more well known names in the debates that took place but he was not the cause of the war.
Dred Scott, was not responsible for the war. He only sued for his rights and that of his wife and two daughters, for their freedom. The civil war was started because the north did not believe in slavery and the south did. It was a war between the states, North and South, not one single person.
There were obviously tensions between the north and south before this case was given national spotlight. It would have eventually degraded to a point that war was inevitable. It may have been for a similar reason or something completely unrelated but it was inevitable. It would be remiss for anyone to state that Dred Scott was the sole cause for a war that was decades in the making.
No, I do not believe that Dred Scott caused the Civil War and that the Civil War would still have occurred with or without his actions. I, however, believe that he played an integral role in the Civil War and what the war was all about, but not significant enough to be blamed for the war starting.