Superseding Cause
Share
Superseding cause is a legal concept used in Tort Law to determine whether an intervening event or act breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's original wrongful act or negligence and the plaintiff's injuries or harm. It is an important consideration in assessing the defendant's liability for the harm suffered by the plaintiff.
Intervening event: A superseding cause refers to an intervening event or act that occurs after the defendant's original wrongful act or negligence but is independent of and subsequent to it. The intervening event becomes the primary cause of the plaintiff's harm, displacing the defendant's liability.
Breaking the chain of causation: The purpose of the concept of superseding cause is to determine whether the intervening event breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm. If the court finds that the intervening event is a superseding cause, it relieves the defendant of liability because it is considered the predominant cause of the harm.
Unforeseeable and unusual: A superseding cause is typically an unforeseeable and highly unusual event that was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of their wrongful act or negligence. It is an intervening act that is not within the normal course of events or the risks associated with the defendant's conduct.
Independent and intervening act: The superseding cause must be an independent and intervening act that significantly contributes to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. It must break the causal connection between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries in a way that makes it unjust or unfair to hold the defendant responsible.
Test of foreseeability: The test of foreseeability is often applied in determining whether an event is a superseding cause. If the intervening event was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, even if unlikely, it may not be considered a superseding cause. On the other hand, if the event was highly unforeseeable or abnormal, it may be deemed a superseding cause.
Exceptions: There are situations where an intervening event does not qualify as a superseding cause and does not relieve the defendant of liability. These exceptions include cases where the defendant should have anticipated the possibility of the intervening event or where the defendant's original wrongful act created a situation that increased the likelihood of the intervening event occurring.
Determining whether an intervening event is a superseding cause is a complex legal analysis that requires a careful examination of the facts, circumstances, and relevant legal principles. The court considers factors such as foreseeability, the nature of the intervening event, the relationship between the defendant's conduct and the harm, and policy considerations.
Intervening event: A superseding cause refers to an intervening event or act that occurs after the defendant's original wrongful act or negligence but is independent of and subsequent to it. The intervening event becomes the primary cause of the plaintiff's harm, displacing the defendant's liability.
Breaking the chain of causation: The purpose of the concept of superseding cause is to determine whether the intervening event breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff's harm. If the court finds that the intervening event is a superseding cause, it relieves the defendant of liability because it is considered the predominant cause of the harm.
Unforeseeable and unusual: A superseding cause is typically an unforeseeable and highly unusual event that was not reasonably foreseeable by the defendant at the time of their wrongful act or negligence. It is an intervening act that is not within the normal course of events or the risks associated with the defendant's conduct.
Independent and intervening act: The superseding cause must be an independent and intervening act that significantly contributes to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. It must break the causal connection between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injuries in a way that makes it unjust or unfair to hold the defendant responsible.
Test of foreseeability: The test of foreseeability is often applied in determining whether an event is a superseding cause. If the intervening event was reasonably foreseeable by the defendant, even if unlikely, it may not be considered a superseding cause. On the other hand, if the event was highly unforeseeable or abnormal, it may be deemed a superseding cause.
Exceptions: There are situations where an intervening event does not qualify as a superseding cause and does not relieve the defendant of liability. These exceptions include cases where the defendant should have anticipated the possibility of the intervening event or where the defendant's original wrongful act created a situation that increased the likelihood of the intervening event occurring.
Determining whether an intervening event is a superseding cause is a complex legal analysis that requires a careful examination of the facts, circumstances, and relevant legal principles. The court considers factors such as foreseeability, the nature of the intervening event, the relationship between the defendant's conduct and the harm, and policy considerations.
