What Is Proximate Cause in Tort Law

The formal Latin term for “but for” (cause indeed) causality, is sine qua non causality. [2] The most common examples of unpredictable levels of harm are cases involving a so-called “eggshell plaintiff.” An “eggshell plaintiff” is a person who suffers physical or mental suffering unexpectedly aggravated by the defendant`s negligence. Alternatively, it is a plaintiff who simply has a very low tolerance for any negligent act of the defendant. In such cases, all courts will hold the defendant liable for the full extent of the plaintiff`s injuries. For example, the drafters of the second and third reformulations of tort law called the “scope of risk” test,[9] the term “risk rule” was coined by the dean of the University of Texas School of Law, Robert Keeton. [10] The rule reads as follows: “The actor`s liability is limited to bodily injury resulting from risks rendered criminal by the actor`s conduct.” [11] The operational question is: “What were the particular risks that made an actor`s behaviour negligent?” If the injury is not due to any of these risks, there can be no recovery. Two examples illustrate this principle: Therefore, in the final version of Restatement (Third), Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, published in 2010, the American Law Institute argued that proximate cause should be replaced by scope of liability. Chapter 6 of the Restatement is entitled “Extent of liability (direct cause)”. It begins with a special note explaining the Institute`s decision to rephrase the concept in terms of “scope of responsibility” as it is not a true causal link, and to also include the term “immediate cause” in parentheses in the chapter header to help judges and lawyers understand the relationship between old and new terminology. The institute added that it “fervently hopes” that parentheses will be unnecessary in a future fourth reformulation of offenses. [17] Moreover, the damage must have been caused directly by the negligence of the defendant.

As the example above shows, pre-existing conditions are not considered intermediate acts. (We will return to intermediate actions in the next chapter). Pre-existing conditions are contributing factors that are already effective at the time of the defendant`s action. Although in the previous example, Ahab`s physical condition was combined with Ishmael`s negligence to cause an unexpected injury, Ahab`s physical condition, the heart problem, is not an intermediate action. It is considered part of the “fixed phase” in which an applicant operates. Example: The driver of “Car A” crosses a red light and hits “Car B”, which had a green light, causing injury to the driver of Car B. The driver of car A had a duty not to run a red light and, assuming that there were no extenuating circumstances that excused running the red light, his actions directly (and therefore nearby) caused injury to the driver of car B. Yes.

If two or more different people violate an obligation and each action is an immediate cause of your violation, you can recover from each person. The actual cause, also known as “cause in fact,” is simple. When a bus hits a car, the actions of the bus driver are the real cause of the accident. Immediate cause means “legal cause” or cause that the law recognizes as the primary cause of the violation. It may not be the first event that triggers a sequence of events that led to a violation, and it may not be the very last event before the injury occurs. Instead, it is an act that had predictable consequences without the intervention of anyone else. In other words, the plaintiff must prove that the injuries were the natural and immediate consequence of the immediate cause, without which the injuries would not have occurred. New York`s personal injury law operates on the basis of what is known as “comparative fault.” This means that when assessing guilt and therefore damages, a court will consider whether the defendant is less than 100% responsible because your behavior also contributed to your own injury. The defendant is liable for lesser damages if you contributed to your own damages. n.

an event giving rise to an event, including, but not limited to, a breach due to negligence or intentional tort. In order to win an action for damages based on negligence or other wrongdoing, it is essential to invoke a direct cause in the claim and prove in court that the defendant`s negligent act was the direct cause (and not no other reason) of the damage caused to the plaintiff (the person who brought the action). Sometimes there is an intermediate cause between the original negligence of the defendant and that of the injured plaintiff, which reduces the extent of liability or, if this intermediate cause is the substantial cause of the injury, the defendant is not liable at all. In criminal law, the defendant`s act must have been the proximate cause of a victim`s death to prove murder or manslaughter. See: negligence, cause of intervention) In order to determine the direct cause of an infringement in the event of negligence or other tort, the courts have developed the “had it not been for” or “sine qua non” rule, which takes into account whether the offence would not have occurred but for the negligence of the defendant. However, the conclusion that the damage would not have occurred without the act of a defendant proves that the act or omission in question is the direct cause of the damage, but does not necessarily give rise to liability, since various other factors may play a role in tort. Factual Cause = Plaintiff`s Harm Would Not Have Occurred Without the Defendant`s Action Immediate Cause = The Plaintiff`s Injury was Caused Directly by the Defendant`s Act and was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Defendant`s Action The case is also used in criminal law. For example, under the probable cause doctrine, the police must have reasonable grounds to commit a crime in order to arrest someone. The actual cause, the subject of the last chapter, is a legal conclusion used to establish the liability of a defendant. The immediate cause, on the other hand, is a provision of a directive used to limit a defendant`s liability. In this case, we do not consider an immediate cause unless we have established the actual cause. Example: You are in a store and the item you want to buy is in a hallway blocked by a sign that says “slippery floor – stay off the ground”.

You decide to reach to get your item, which is almost an arm`s length away. When you reach, your feet move down the aisle, and you slip and fall and injure your hip. A court may decide that the deal was negligent, how it blocked the driveway, and that you were 0% to blame. The court could also decide that because you ignored a warning, you were 10% guilty, 50% guilty, 90% guilty, or even completely guilty. Regardless of the percentage, it will be deducted from your recovery. So if you have $10,000 in damages and you`re 25% in debt, you`ll only get back $7,500. Example: The driver of “Car A” crosses a red light and “Car B”, which has a green light, swerves to avoid being hit. The driver of car B smokes and nervous, has a rapid pulse. Annoyed, the driver of car B continues, encounters a parked car three blocks later and is injured. The driver of car B may attempt to claim that the actions of the driver of car A injured him when he hit the parked car. And it may well be a distant cause; But that`s probably not the immediate cause. Jessica brings a box of firecrackers on a train.

As she boards, she stumbles and the box of fireworks explodes. The explosion violently shook the loading area. At the opposite end of the loading area, a large machine falls and injures a passenger. Is Jessica the next to hurt passengers? In other words, does bringing fireworks on a train create a foreseeable risk that a distant and heavy object will fall and injure someone? Or is the tall, heavy, and inherently unstable design of the machine an intermediate cause that denies immediate causality? The immediate cause is the main cause of injury. It is not necessarily the next cause in time or space, or the first event that triggers a sequence of events that lead to a violation. The immediate cause produces special and foreseeable consequences without the intervention of an independent or unpredictable cause. It is also called the legal cause. Example: You play wrestling and your ball goes over a fence on someone else`s property. The fence is locked and a sign reads: “Do not enter; Bell. You ring the bell, and the owner opens the door and invites you to his property. You declare that you have lost your ball.

The owner tells you to wait at the goal while he retrieves your ball “because the yard is not safe”. The owner begins to fetch the ball and crosses his garden in a strange pattern. You become impatient and decide to follow him. You walk on the grass and notice in seconds that your feet are bleeding because there is glass everywhere.