Intervening cause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tort law II
Part of the common law series
Negligent torts
Negligence  · Negligent hiring
Negligent entrustment  · Malpractice
Negligent infliction of emotional distress
Doctrines affecting liability
Duty of care  · Standard of care
Proximate cause  · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence  · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability  · Attractive nuisance
Rescue doctrine  · Duty to rescue
Comparative responsibility
Duties owed to visitors to property
Trespassers  · Licensees  · Invitees
Defenses to negligence
Contributory negligence
Last clear chance
Comparative negligence
Assumption of risk  · Intervening cause
Strict liability
Ultrahazardous activity
Product liability
Nuisance
Other areas of the common law
Contract law  · Property law
Wills and trusts
Criminal law  · Evidence

An intervening cause is a potential defense to the tort of negligence, if it is an unforeseeable, and therefore superseding intervening cause, rather than a foreseeable intervening cause.

For example, if a defendant 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.

Similarly, a foreseeable intervening cause that leads to an unforeseeable result would absolve the defendant of liability.

However, both the act and the injury must be unforeseeable. For instance, if there is a hole in the ground and the contractor fails to place a fence/guard around the hole. Then, a person negligently does not take their medication while driving, and they fall into this hole and hurt the worker inside the hole. The contractor will still be liable for the damage to the worker even in light of the intervening negligent act of not taking the meds. This is because even though the negligent act of the third party is not foreseeable, the fact of injury is foreseeable (another car falling in because there is no guard). This, however, is not a good example because a person working for an employer is covered for his injuries incurred on the job by workers' compensation which coverage renders the employer immune from suit.