Intervening and superseding causes play a crucial role in determining liability in negligence cases. These concepts help courts decide if an original wrongdoer should be held responsible for all resulting harm or if later events break the chain of causation.

Foreseeability is key in distinguishing between intervening and superseding causes. While foreseeable events don't relieve the initial tortfeasor of liability, unforeseeable superseding causes can sever the causal connection, shifting responsibility to the new actor or event.

Intervening and Superseding Causes

Intervening and superseding causes

• Intervening cause occurs after initial negligent act contributes to resulting harm
  • Can be natural event (earthquake) or actions of third party (another driver)
  • May or may not relieve original tortfeasor of liability depending on foreseeability
• Superseding cause is unforeseeable intervening cause sufficient to sever causal connection between original negligent act and resulting harm
  • Relieves original tortfeasor of liability
  • Becomes proximate cause of harm

Foreseeable vs unforeseeable intervening causes

• Foreseeable intervening causes are events reasonable person could anticipate or expect as result of original negligent act
  • Car accident caused by negligent driver followed by second accident caused by rubbernecking
  • Negligently maintained staircase causing injury followed by medical malpractice during treatment
  • Original tortfeasor remains liable for resulting harm
• Unforeseeable intervening causes are highly extraordinary or unexpected given circumstances
  • Car accident caused by negligent driver followed by meteor striking injured person
  • Negligently maintained staircase causing injury followed by injured person being struck by lightning while seeking medical attention
  • Original tortfeasor relieved of liability as intervening cause becomes superseding cause

Superseding causes and liability

• Factors to consider when determining if intervening cause is superseding cause:
  1. Foreseeability: Was intervening cause reasonably foreseeable given original negligent act?
  2. Independence: Did intervening cause operate independently of original negligent act?
  3. Culpability: Was intervening cause result of third party's reckless, intentional, or criminal conduct?
  4. Temporal proximity: How much time elapsed between original negligent act and intervening cause?
  5. Causal relationship: Did original negligent act set stage for intervening cause or were they unrelated?
• Intervening cause becomes superseding cause when unforeseeable, independent, and sufficient to break causal chain between original negligent act and resulting harm

Application of causation concepts

• Example 1: Negligent driver (A) causes accident injuring another driver (B). While waiting for medical attention, second negligent driver (C) crashes into B's car exacerbating B's injuries.
  • C's actions are foreseeable intervening cause as secondary accidents at crash sites are not uncommon
  • A remains liable for entirety of B's injuries
• Example 2: Homeowner negligently fails to repair broken stair railing. Visitor falls due to broken railing injuring their arm. While driving to hospital, visitor is struck by drunk driver causing severe head trauma.
  • Drunk driver's actions are unforeseeable intervening cause as they are highly extraordinary and independent of homeowner's negligence
  • Drunk driver's actions become superseding cause relieving homeowner of liability for head trauma but not for arm injury