Intervening cause

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tort law
Part of the common law series
Intentional torts
Assault  · Battery  · False imprisonment
Intentional infliction of
emotional distress (IIED)
Consent  · Necessity  · Self defense
Property torts
Trespass  · Conversion
Detinue  · Replevin  · Trover
Dignitary torts
Defamation  · Invasion of privacy
Breach of confidence  · Abuse of process
Malicious prosecution
Alienation of affections
Economic torts
Fraud  · Tortious interference
Conspiracy  · Restraint of trade
Nuisance
Public nuisance  · Rylands v. Fletcher
Negligence
Duty of care  · Standard of care
Proximate cause  · Res ipsa loquitur
Calculus of negligence
Rescue doctrine  · Duty to rescue
Specific kinds of negligence
Negligent infliction of
emotional distress (NIED)
In employment  · Entrustment
Malpractice
Duty to visitors
Trespassers  · Licensees  · Invitees
Attractive nuisance
Strict liability torts
Product liability  · Ultrahazardous activity
Liability, defences, remedies
Comparative and contributory negligence
Last clear chance  · Eggshell skull
Vicarious liability  · Volenti non fit injuria
Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
Damages  · Injunction
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.