key term - Intervening Cause

Definition

An intervening cause is an event that occurs after a defendant's act and contributes to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, potentially breaking the chain of causation. This concept is crucial for determining liability, as it helps establish whether the defendant's actions were the direct cause of the injury or if another factor intervened that might lessen or negate their responsibility.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Intervening causes can be either foreseeable or unforeseeable, affecting how liability is assigned in tort cases.
2. If an intervening cause is deemed a superseding cause, it can completely sever the connection between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm.
3. In many cases, courts will assess whether the intervening cause was a natural response to the defendant's initial act or if it was an independent action.
4. An intervening cause can include actions by third parties, natural events, or even the victim's own conduct.
5. Understanding intervening causes is essential for grasping how multiple parties may share responsibility for an injury.

Review Questions

• How does the presence of an intervening cause affect the determination of liability in a tort case?
  • The presence of an intervening cause complicates the determination of liability because it introduces additional factors that may influence the outcome. If the intervening cause is deemed foreseeable and directly linked to the initial act of negligence, it may not absolve the defendant from responsibility. However, if it is found to be a superseding cause, it can completely sever the causal link, relieving the defendant of liability. Courts often analyze these situations on a case-by-case basis to assess how much influence the intervening cause had on the harm suffered.
• Discuss how courts differentiate between ordinary intervening causes and superseding causes in tort law.
  • Courts differentiate between ordinary intervening causes and superseding causes by examining the degree of connection between the defendant's act and the subsequent event. An ordinary intervening cause does not break the chain of causation; instead, it may still be seen as a foreseeable consequence of the original act. In contrast, a superseding cause significantly alters the situation in such a way that it interrupts this chain, leading to different conclusions about liability. Factors such as foreseeability and the nature of the intervening event are key in this analysis.
• Evaluate how understanding intervening causes impacts legal strategies for both plaintiffs and defendants in tort litigation.
  • Understanding intervening causes is vital for shaping legal strategies in tort litigation for both plaintiffs and defendants. For plaintiffs, identifying an intervening cause can bolster their argument by demonstrating how their injuries were directly linked to the defendant's actions without being disrupted by external factors. Conversely, defendants can use knowledge of intervening causes to argue that their liability should be reduced or eliminated altogether if they can show that an independent event significantly contributed to or caused the harm. This understanding influences how both sides present evidence and frame their arguments regarding causation.

Related terms

Superseding Cause:

A superseding cause is a type of intervening cause that is so significant that it completely absolves the original wrongdoer from liability.

Causation:

Causation refers to the relationship between an act and the resulting injury, establishing whether the act led to the harm.

Negligence: Negligence is a failure to exercise reasonable care, resulting in harm to another person, and is often linked to discussions of causation.