Fiveable
Fiveable
Fiveable
Fiveable

🤕Torts

🤕torts review

6.3 Intervening and Superseding Causes

3 min readLast Updated on July 23, 2024

Intervening and superseding causes play a crucial role in determining liability in negligence cases. These concepts help courts decide if an original wrongdoer should be held responsible for all resulting harm or if later events break the chain of causation.

Foreseeability is key in distinguishing between intervening and superseding causes. While foreseeable events don't relieve the initial tortfeasor of liability, unforeseeable superseding causes can sever the causal connection, shifting responsibility to the new actor or event.

Intervening and Superseding Causes

Intervening and superseding causes

Top images from around the web for Intervening and superseding causes
Top images from around the web for Intervening and superseding causes

Foreseeable vs unforeseeable intervening causes

  • Foreseeable intervening causes are events reasonable person could anticipate or expect as result of original negligent act
    • Car accident caused by negligent driver followed by second accident caused by rubbernecking
    • Negligently maintained staircase causing injury followed by medical malpractice during treatment
    • Original tortfeasor remains liable for resulting harm
  • Unforeseeable intervening causes are highly extraordinary or unexpected given circumstances
    • Car accident caused by negligent driver followed by meteor striking injured person
    • Negligently maintained staircase causing injury followed by injured person being struck by lightning while seeking medical attention
    • Original tortfeasor relieved of liability as intervening cause becomes superseding cause

Superseding causes and liability

  • Factors to consider when determining if intervening cause is superseding cause:
    1. Foreseeability: Was intervening cause reasonably foreseeable given original negligent act?
    2. Independence: Did intervening cause operate independently of original negligent act?
    3. Culpability: Was intervening cause result of third party's reckless, intentional, or criminal conduct?
    4. Temporal proximity: How much time elapsed between original negligent act and intervening cause?
    5. Causal relationship: Did original negligent act set stage for intervening cause or were they unrelated?
  • Intervening cause becomes superseding cause when unforeseeable, independent, and sufficient to break causal chain between original negligent act and resulting harm

Application of causation concepts

  • Example 1: Negligent driver (A) causes accident injuring another driver (B). While waiting for medical attention, second negligent driver (C) crashes into B's car exacerbating B's injuries.
    • C's actions are foreseeable intervening cause as secondary accidents at crash sites are not uncommon
    • A remains liable for entirety of B's injuries
  • Example 2: Homeowner negligently fails to repair broken stair railing. Visitor falls due to broken railing injuring their arm. While driving to hospital, visitor is struck by drunk driver causing severe head trauma.
    • Drunk driver's actions are unforeseeable intervening cause as they are highly extraordinary and independent of homeowner's negligence
    • Drunk driver's actions become superseding cause relieving homeowner of liability for head trauma but not for arm injury

Key Terms to Review (17)

Causal Connection: Causal connection refers to the relationship between a defendant's conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, establishing that the defendant's actions were a significant factor in bringing about the injury. This concept is crucial in determining liability in tort cases, as it helps to differentiate between direct consequences of actions and those that are merely coincidental or too remote. Understanding causal connection also involves distinguishing between intervening and superseding causes, which can affect the outcome of a case.
Causal Relationship: A causal relationship refers to a connection between two events where one event (the cause) directly influences or produces an effect in the other event. Understanding this relationship is crucial, especially when evaluating how intervening or superseding causes can disrupt or maintain liability in tort law cases, thereby determining if a defendant is legally responsible for the harm caused to a plaintiff.
Chain of causation: Chain of causation refers to the series of events or actions that lead to a particular outcome, especially in determining liability in tort law. This concept helps to establish how an injury or damage can be linked back to a defendant's actions, forming a continuous connection from the initial act to the final consequence. Understanding this chain is crucial when analyzing intervening and superseding causes, as it allows for a clearer picture of how various factors may impact the outcome of a case.
Culpability: Culpability refers to the degree of blame or responsibility that a person has for committing a wrongful act. It plays a crucial role in determining liability, as it assesses whether an individual's actions were intentional, reckless, or negligent. Understanding culpability is essential for distinguishing between varying levels of wrongdoing and how they influence legal outcomes, especially when considering factors like intervening and superseding causes.
Dependent Intervening Cause: 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.
Factors of Superseding Cause: Factors of superseding cause refer to specific elements that determine whether an intervening act breaks the chain of causation in a tort case. These factors help courts assess if a defendant can still be held liable for harm caused by an intervening event that occurs after the defendant's initial act or omission. The significance of these factors lies in their ability to distinguish between what is considered a foreseeable outcome and what is so remote or extraordinary that it warrants absolving the original defendant of liability.
Foreseeability: Foreseeability is a legal concept that refers to the ability to predict or anticipate the potential consequences of one's actions or omissions. It plays a crucial role in determining liability in tort law, as it helps establish whether a defendant should have anticipated the harm that resulted from their conduct.
Independence: Independence, in the context of intervening and superseding causes, refers to the notion that an intervening event or action occurs without being influenced or controlled by the initial negligent act. This means that the relationship between the original cause and the harm caused must be analyzed to determine if the subsequent event stands alone and is sufficiently separate from the original conduct. Understanding independence is crucial for establishing liability, as it can break the chain of causation if an independent cause intervenes.
Intervening Cause: 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.
Liability: Liability refers to the legal responsibility one party has to another for causing harm or injury, which can result in financial compensation or other remedies. It is a fundamental principle in tort law, where the focus is on whether an individual or entity should be held accountable for their actions, particularly when those actions lead to damages or injuries suffered by others. Understanding liability is essential for determining the extent of responsibility and the consequences of negligent or intentional conduct.
Negligence: Negligence is the failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would in similar circumstances, leading to harm or injury to another person. This concept is central to tort law, as it establishes liability for individuals whose careless actions or omissions result in damage or injury to others, connecting to various legal principles and doctrines.
Negligent act: A negligent act refers to a failure to exercise the care that a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, leading to unintended harm or damage to another party. This concept is essential in establishing liability in tort law, where the focus is on the breach of duty and the causation of harm resulting from that breach. Understanding how intervening and superseding causes can affect liability is crucial, as they can either break the chain of causation or mitigate the responsibility of the original negligent party.
Proximate Cause: Proximate cause, also known as legal cause, refers to the primary cause that is legally sufficient to hold a party liable for damages resulting from their actions. It connects the defendant's conduct with the harm suffered by the plaintiff and establishes whether the harm was a foreseeable result of that conduct.
Resulting Harm: Resulting harm refers to the damage or injury that occurs as a consequence of an action or omission, particularly in the context of negligence or tortious liability. It is essential for establishing causation in tort cases, as a plaintiff must demonstrate that their injury was directly linked to the defendant's conduct. Understanding resulting harm helps in determining whether liability exists when intervening or superseding causes come into play.
Superseding Cause: A superseding cause is an event or action that intervenes after a defendant's negligent act and effectively breaks the chain of causation, relieving the defendant of liability for the resulting harm. This term is significant in understanding how certain intervening actions can diminish or eliminate a defendant's responsibility when the intervening act is unforeseeable and significant enough to warrant such a break in liability.
Temporal proximity: Temporal proximity refers to the closeness in time between an event and the resulting harm or injury that occurs due to that event. It is a crucial factor in determining causation in tort law, especially when assessing intervening and superseding causes, as it helps establish whether an event can be linked directly to the harm caused.
Unforeseeable intervening cause: An unforeseeable intervening cause is an event that occurs after a defendant's negligent act and serves to break the causal chain, preventing the defendant from being held liable for the subsequent harm. This type of cause is considered unpredictable and unrelated to the original negligent act, meaning that the resulting injury could not have been reasonably anticipated by the defendant. Understanding this concept helps clarify how liability can shift when unexpected events occur between the initial negligence and the injury.
Causal Connection
See definition

Causal connection refers to the relationship between a defendant's conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, establishing that the defendant's actions were a significant factor in bringing about the injury. This concept is crucial in determining liability in tort cases, as it helps to differentiate between direct consequences of actions and those that are merely coincidental or too remote. Understanding causal connection also involves distinguishing between intervening and superseding causes, which can affect the outcome of a case.

Term 1 of 17

Causal Connection
See definition

Causal connection refers to the relationship between a defendant's conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff, establishing that the defendant's actions were a significant factor in bringing about the injury. This concept is crucial in determining liability in tort cases, as it helps to differentiate between direct consequences of actions and those that are merely coincidental or too remote. Understanding causal connection also involves distinguishing between intervening and superseding causes, which can affect the outcome of a case.

Term 1 of 17



© 2025 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

© 2025 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.