Intervening cause

Definition

An intervening cause is an event or action that occurs after a defendant's initial act of negligence but before the harm to the plaintiff, which can break the chain of causation. This legal concept plays a crucial role in determining liability, as it can absolve a defendant from responsibility if the intervening cause is deemed unforeseeable or independent of their actions. Understanding how an intervening cause operates helps clarify the boundaries of tort liability and the effects of unexpected events on legal responsibility.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Intervening causes can include natural disasters, criminal acts by third parties, or other unexpected events that impact the outcome of a situation.
2. For an intervening cause to absolve a defendant from liability, it must be shown that it was not foreseeable at the time of the original negligent act.
3. If an intervening cause is found to be foreseeable, it may not break the chain of causation and the defendant could still be held liable.
4. Courts often look at whether the intervening event was independent of the defendant’s actions when determining liability.
5. The concept of intervening cause emphasizes the importance of foreseeability and reasonableness in establishing tort liability.

Review Questions

• How does an intervening cause affect the determination of liability in tort cases?
  • An intervening cause can significantly impact liability in tort cases by potentially breaking the chain of causation between a defendant's negligent act and the plaintiff's injury. If the intervening cause is deemed unforeseeable and independent from the defendant's actions, it may relieve the defendant of liability. However, if it can be shown that the intervening cause was foreseeable, the court may still hold the defendant responsible for damages resulting from their initial act.
• Compare and contrast intervening causes and superseding causes in terms of their effect on tort liability.
  • Both intervening causes and superseding causes can alter liability outcomes in tort cases, but they differ in their significance. An intervening cause occurs between the negligent act and the harm but may still allow for liability if it is deemed foreseeable. In contrast, a superseding cause is so significant that it completely overshadows the original negligence, ultimately relieving the defendant of any responsibility. Understanding these distinctions helps clarify how different events influence legal accountability.
• Evaluate a scenario where an intervening cause affects an individual's claim for damages due to negligence. What factors would you consider in your analysis?
  • In evaluating a scenario with an intervening cause affecting a negligence claim, I would consider several factors: whether the intervening event was foreseeable at the time of the original negligent act, if it was independent from the defendant’s conduct, and how directly it impacted the plaintiff’s injuries. Additionally, I would analyze any evidence regarding prior knowledge of potential risks associated with the intervening cause. The ultimate question would be whether this intervening cause breaks the chain of causation or allows for continued liability based on its relation to initial negligence.

Related terms

proximate cause: A primary cause that is legally sufficient to result in liability, showing a direct link between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries.

negligence: A failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in damage or injury to another person, which is a foundational element in many tort claims.

superseding cause: An event that occurs after the defendant's negligent act and is so significant that it completely overshadows the original act, relieving the defendant of liability.