Dependent Intervening Cause

Definition

A dependent intervening cause is an event that occurs after a defendant's negligent act and contributes to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, but does not break the chain of causation because it is foreseeable. These causes rely on the initial wrongful act, meaning that the defendant can still be held liable for the resulting damages. Understanding this concept helps in analyzing how various factors influence liability in tort law.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Dependent intervening causes are crucial in determining whether a defendant can be held liable for injuries sustained by a plaintiff after a negligent act.
2. For a dependent intervening cause to exist, it must be foreseeable that the intervening event could happen as a result of the original act of negligence.
3. If an intervening cause is considered dependent, it keeps the original actor liable because the harm was still a direct result of their actions.
4. Examples of dependent intervening causes include subsequent medical malpractice or negligence that occurs while treating injuries from an initial incident.
5. The courts will often assess whether a reasonable person could have anticipated the dependent intervening cause when determining liability.

Review Questions

• How does a dependent intervening cause influence the liability of a defendant in tort cases?
  • A dependent intervening cause maintains the chain of causation between the defendant's negligent act and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Because these causes are foreseeable and rely on the initial wrongful act, they do not absolve the defendant from liability. This means that if a plaintiff suffers additional harm due to a dependent intervening cause, the defendant can still be held responsible for all resulting damages.
• Discuss how dependent intervening causes differ from superseding causes in terms of legal liability.
  • Dependent intervening causes do not break the chain of causation and keep the original defendant liable for the resulting harm, while superseding causes are independent events that interrupt this chain. When a superseding cause occurs, it is considered so significant that it relieves the defendant from any responsibility for subsequent damages. Understanding this distinction is vital in tort law, as it helps determine whether defendants remain liable for injuries caused by events that follow their negligent acts.
• Evaluate a case scenario involving both dependent and superseding causes, explaining their implications for liability.
  • Consider a case where a driver negligently runs a red light and collides with another vehicle. The injured party subsequently requires medical treatment but suffers complications due to medical malpractice during surgery. Here, the driver's actions are the initial cause, and any complications from medical malpractice could be viewed as a dependent intervening cause if they were foreseeable. However, if there was an unrelated natural disaster that caused additional injuries after the accident, it could be deemed a superseding cause that absolves the driver from further liability. This analysis highlights how courts must carefully assess each event's connection to determine who ultimately bears responsibility for damages.

Related terms

Negligence: A failure to take proper care in doing something, which results in damage or injury to another party.

Superseding Cause:

An intervening cause that is deemed to be independent and breaks the chain of causation, releasing the defendant from liability for the plaintiff's injuries.

Causation:

The relationship between a defendant's conduct and the resulting harm to the plaintiff, consisting of both actual cause and proximate cause.