In
tort law
A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable ...
, an intervening cause is an event that occurs after a tortfeasor's initial act of
negligence
Negligence (Lat. ''negligentia'') is a failure to exercise appropriate and/or ethical ruled care expected to be exercised amongst specified circumstances. The area of tort law known as ''negligence'' involves harm caused by failing to act as a ...
and causes injury/harm to a victim. An intervening cause will generally absolve the tortfeasor of liability for the victim's injury ''only if'' the event is deemed a ''superseding cause''. A ''superseding cause'' is an ''unforeseeable'' intervening cause. By contrast, a ''foreseeable'' intervening cause typically does ''not'' break the chain of causality, meaning that the tortfeasor is still responsible for the victim's injury—unless the event leads to an unforeseeable result.
For example (as in the US case of Watson v.
Kentucky & Indiana Bridge & Railroad Co.), if a
defendant
In court proceedings, a defendant is a person or object who is the party either accused of committing a crime in criminal prosecution or against whom some type of civil relief is being sought in a civil case.
Terminology varies from one jurisdic ...
had carelessly spilled gasoline near a pile of cigarette butts in an alley behind a bar, the fact that a bar patron later carelessly threw a cigarette butt into the gasoline would be deemed a foreseeable intervening cause, and would not absolve the defendant of tort liability. However, if the bar patron ''intentionally'' threw the cigarette butt into the gasoline because he wanted to see it ignite, this intentional act would likely be deemed unforeseeable, and therefore superseding.
In order for the intervening cause to be deemed ''superseding'' and relieve the tortfeasor of liability, both the act/event ''and'' the injury must be ''unforeseeable''. For example, assume that contractor A was responsible for fencing or marking a hole in the ground and negligently fails to do so while contractor B is working in the hole. Then, a driver—who negligently failed to take his medication before driving and therefore does not see clearly—drives into the unmarked hole and injures contractor B. Contractor A will still be liable for the damage to contractor B despite the driver's negligence in not taking medication. This is because, even though the negligent act of the driver is not foreseeable, the fact of injury by a driver is foreseeable (i.e., a car falling in because there is no guard).
[Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp., 51 N.Y.2d 308, 434 N.Y.S.2d 166 (NY Ct App, 1980); McCoy v. American Suzuki Motor Corp., 136 Wash.2d 350, 961 P.2d 952 (Sup Ct. Wash 1998)]
See also
*
Proximate cause
In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Ca ...
*''
Re Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd
'' In Re'' ''Polemis & Furness, Withy & Co Ltd'' (1921) is an English tort case on causation and remoteness in the law of negligence.
The Court of Appeal held that a defendant can be deemed liable for all consequences flowing from his negli ...
''
References
External links
Video explanation of intervening cause
Tort law
{{Law-term-stub