Intervening and Superseding Causes under Torts Law
Intervening and Superseding Causes under Torts Law
Overview
In tort law, causation is a fundamental element that connects the defendant’s conduct to the plaintiff’s injury. However, sometimes after the defendant’s negligent act, other events occur that contribute to or cause the injury. These subsequent events are called intervening causes.
When an intervening cause breaks the chain of causation between the defendant’s negligence and the plaintiff’s harm, it is called a superseding cause. A superseding cause relieves the original defendant of liability because it is deemed unforeseeable and independent enough to be the sole cause of injury.
Definitions
Intervening Cause: An event or act that occurs after the defendant’s negligent act but before the plaintiff’s injury, which contributes to the injury.
Superseding Cause: A type of intervening cause that is so unexpected or extraordinary that it breaks the causal chain and absolves the original defendant of liability.
Legal Significance
If an intervening cause is foreseeable and a natural result of the defendant’s negligence, the defendant remains liable.
If the intervening cause is superseding (unforeseeable and independent), the defendant is not liable because the chain of causation is broken.
Factors to Determine Superseding Cause
Courts look at several factors:
Foreseeability: Could the defendant have reasonably anticipated the intervening event?
Nature of the intervening act: Was it negligent, reckless, or intentional?
Connection to defendant’s act: Was the intervening act a direct consequence of the defendant’s negligence or independent?
Examples
Foreseeable intervening cause: Emergency medical treatment after an injury caused by the defendant’s negligence. If the medical care is negligent but related, the defendant may still be liable.
Superseding cause: A criminal assault by a third party completely unrelated to the defendant’s act, breaking the causal chain.
Leading Case Law
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 248 N.Y. 339 (1928)
This classic case emphasizes foreseeability in proximate cause. Although not specifically about superseding causes, it laid the groundwork for understanding limits of liability when intervening events occur.
Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308 (1980)
The court held that negligent medical treatment after a workplace injury was a foreseeable intervening cause and did not relieve the original negligent party of liability.
Marshall v. Nugent, 97 Mich. App. 415 (1980)
Here, the court found that a criminal act (an assault) by a third party was a superseding cause that broke the chain of causation from the original negligent act.
Lassiter v. City of Bremerton, 556 P.2d 245 (Wash. 1976)
The court ruled that an intervening cause is superseding only when it is extraordinary and unforeseeable. Routine human actions or responses to danger are usually foreseeable.
Application in Tort Cases
When a defendant argues that an intervening cause should relieve them of liability, the court will analyze if the intervening event was foreseeable or not.
For medical malpractice occurring after an accident caused by the defendant, courts usually find the intervening cause foreseeable.
For intentional crimes or acts unrelated to the defendant’s negligence, courts often find a superseding cause.
Summary
Intervening causes are events occurring after the defendant’s negligence that contribute to harm.
Superseding causes are unforeseeable, independent intervening causes that break the chain of causation and relieve the defendant of liability.
The key question is foreseeability and whether the intervening act is a natural consequence of the defendant’s conduct.
Case law like Palsgraf and Derdiarian provide foundational principles to analyze these issues.
RELATED Blog
0 comments