Intervening cause and superseding cause are two legal doctrines that can be used to determine liability in personal injury cases. An intervening cause is an event that occurs after the defendant’s negligent act or omission and that causes the plaintiff’s injuries. A superseding cause is an event that is so extraordinary and unforeseeable that it breaks the causal chain between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injuries.
Intervening vs. Superseding Cause: Determining the Best Structure
When analyzing the chain of events in a legal case, it’s essential to distinguish between intervening and superseding causes. Here’s a detailed explanation to help you understand the best structure for each:
Intervening Cause
- Occurs after the original wrongful act (negligence or intentional misconduct).
- Breaks the causal connection between the original act and the resulting injury.
- Must be independent of the original act.
- May be foreseeable or unforeseeable.
- If foreseeable, the original actor may still be liable if the intervening cause was reasonably foreseeable.
- If unforeseeable, the intervening cause relieves the original actor of liability.
Superseding Cause
- Replaces the original wrongful act as the direct cause of the injury.
- Must be independent of and unrelated to the original act.
- Must be unforeseeable by the original actor.
- Breaks the causal chain completely.
- Relieves the original actor of liability.
Determining the Best Structure
The best structure for intervening vs. superseding cause depends on the specific facts of the case. Here’s a table to help you:
| Characteristic | Intervening Cause | Superseding Cause |
|---|---|---|
| Definition | Breaks the causal connection between the original act and injury | Replaces the original act as the direct cause of injury |
| Independence | Independent of the original act | Independent and unrelated to the original act |
| Foreseeability | May be foreseeable or unforeseeable | Must be unforeseeable |
| Effect on Liability | May or may not relieve the original actor of liability | Relieves the original actor of liability |
Example
In a car accident case:
- Original Act: Driver A runs a red light (negligence).
- Intervening Cause: Driver B swerves into oncoming traffic to avoid Driver A (foreseeable).
- Superseding Cause: A third car comes out of a side street and hits Driver A’s car (unforeseeable).
In this case, Driver B’s swerve is an intervening cause that doesn’t relieve Driver A of liability since it was foreseeable. However, the third car coming out of the side street is a superseding cause that breaks the causal chain and relieves Driver A of liability.
Question 1:
What is the difference between an intervening cause and a superseding cause in the context of negligence?
Answer:
An intervening cause is an independent event that occurs after the defendant’s negligence but before the plaintiff’s injury. A superseding cause is an unforeseeable event that breaks the causal chain between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s injury.
Question 2:
How does the concept of intervening or superseding cause affect liability in negligence cases?
Answer:
If an intervening cause occurs, the defendant may not be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries. If a superseding cause occurs, the defendant will not be liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Question 3:
What factors do courts consider when determining whether an event is an intervening or superseding cause?
Answer:
Courts consider the foreseeability of the event, the degree of departure from the normal course of events, and the extent to which the event’s occurrence was a direct result of the defendant’s negligence.
Well, there you have it, folks! Intervening cause and superseding cause – two important concepts when trying to understand fault and liability. Hopefully, this article has shed some light on the subject. Remember, it’s always best to consult with an attorney if you have any questions about your specific situation. Thanks for reading! Be sure to check back later for more legal tidbits and insights.