Accidents are complicated events. And when an accident involves injured parties, multiple factors may complicate matters further. When injured victims need compensation for the costs associated with their injury caused by a third party, they must file a personal injury lawsuit. In order to move forward with their claim, they must prove that another party was at fault for their injury. This is where many victims get confused regarding intervening vs superseding cause in Texas. They also come to our attorneys for assistance in understanding proximate cause vs cause in fact.
To begin a Texas Prima Facie Case, the injured party must present enough basic evidence to show that the defendant’s negligence likely caused the harm.
In order to prove fault, the injured party must first establish the element of negligence. Part of establishing negligence requires showing that the at-fault party’s action or inaction was a cause of the injuries.
Both intervening and superseding causes can blur the lines for those trying to establish fault in their personal injury cases. In some cases, these causes can diminish or erase the defendant’s liability.
This means that for personal injury victims, intervening and superseding causes can reduce or eliminate the ability to receive adequate damages for the injuries sustained.
Liability in a personal injury case hinges on proving that a defendant’s negligent action connects directly to the accident or event. When faced with this situation, you need the guidance and experience of a San Antonio personal injury attorney at Janicek Law.
Proximate Cause, Intervening Cause, and Superceding Cause in Third-Party Accidents
Any time a third party is introduced in a scenario, things get more complicated. This is exacerbated when an accident occurs. Accidents such as car wrecks, slips or trips, and falls, incidents on construction sites, and more are examples of personal injuries typically caused by a third party.
The notion of proximate, intervening, and superseding causes creates a grey area, making it more difficult for victims to receive fair compensation for their injuries sustained as a result of the at-fault party’s negligence.
What are these causes, and how do they affect personal injury claims?
Proximate Cause Definition
In personal injury cases, the proximate cause is simply the legal cause of the accident.
When actions of the liable party happen in an unbroken chain of events and directly cause injuries, they are the proximate cause of the accident.
The claimant must prove that the proximate cause of the accident and the injuries that occurred as a result of the accident wouldn’t have occurred if not for the defendant’s negligence.
Proving the following two elements establishes proximate cause in a personal injury claim:
Proximate Cause vs Cause in Fact
Cause-in-fact is the link between the at-fault party’s actions and the damages sustained by the injured party. The injury exists because of the actions performed (or not performed) by the negligent party.
Proximate cause takes this a step further. It asks whether the harm was a foreseeable result. Even if the defendant caused an accident in fact, they are only liable if the harm was something that a reasonable person could have reasonably foreseen.
So, cause in fact covers what actually happened, while proximate cause covers whether Texas law says the defendant should be held accountable for it.
Actual vs Proximate Cause
The actual cause is also called the cause in fact. So, the same applies as above.
Cases that involve multiple proximate causes become increasingly more complex.
To better understand how responsibility occurs in personal injury cases, it’s crucial to revisit the basic definition of negligence. So, what is negligence in Texas?
In Texas, negligence occurs when a person or entity fails to exercise reasonable care and this causes harm to someone else.
Proximate Cause Example
Here is a proximate cause example:
A driver runs a red light, crashing into another vehicle and injuring the other driver. This was a foreseeable result, so the driver’s negligence was the proximate cause of the victim’s injury.
However, if the collision causes a nearby power line to fall and this leads to a fire that seriously burns someone else, that victim’s injury may not be considered a foreseeable result under Texas law.
Here, the driver who ran the light may not be the proximate cause of the burn injuries, even if they started the chain of events that led to the burn.
For legal assistance, contact a San Antonio car wreck attorney from our legal team.
What Is an Intervening Cause?
Any act that breaks the direct link between the defendant’s actions and the victim’s injuries, after the negligent action, is an intervening cause.
An intervening cause can either be a third party’s action or an act of nature.
If a truck accident eyewitness tries to help a victim but instead worsens the injuries, this is an example of an intervening cause.
So, unlike a proximate cause, an intervening cause could potentially lessen or remove a defendant’s liability. However, in both cases, the original defendant is typically considered partially liable for the damages, even when an intervening cause is present. The defendant is relieved of their liability only if the event was not foreseeable to a reasonable person.
If you’ve been injured in a San Antonio truck accident, consult our legal team to learn more.
Types of Intervening Causes
Two types of intervening causes exist. These are dependent and independent.
Dependent Intervening Cause
The dependent intervening cause stems from the defendant’s behavior. Unless it is extraordinary, the defendant’s liability remains.
Independent Intervening Cause
A defendant bears no fault for an independent intervening cause. Unless the event was foreseeable, it relieves the defendant of liability.
However, some premises liability cases involve small children who are injured by hazardous conditions. The Texas attractive nuisance doctrine may apply when property owners fail to secure features that might entice a child. If the property owner doesn’t have children, they may not realize that small kids are extremely curious, especially if there’s a pool or a dangerous dog wandering in a yard. This lack of understanding surrounding children does not relieve the property owner of their responsibility under Texas law.
If your child was injured on someone else’s property in San Antonio, a skilled attorney at our firm can help.
Superseding Cause Definition
A superseding cause prevents a claimant from establishing a proximate cause in an accident. It overrides or supersedes a defendant’s accident liability. It serves as a powerful defense against claims of negligence. That’s because superseding cause proves that something or someone else – not the defendant’s actions – served as the accident’s proximate cause.
Often, a defendant may avoid liability when a superseding cause exists. It weakens the connection between the claimant’s injuries and the defendant’s actions.
A superseding cause is also one that cannot be foreseen.
Why Would a Superseding Cause Relieve a Tort Defendant of Liability?
A superseding cause can relieve a tort defendant because it breaks down the chain of causation between the defendant’s actions or negligence and the victim’s injury.
In Texas, defendants are only liable if their actions or negligence were the proximate cause of injuries. However, if an unforeseeable and independent event occurs after this act or negligence, and the new event is actually what causes harm, then the original defendant can no longer be held accountable.
Superseding Cause Examples
- A construction company leaves a major hole uncovered without proper signage. This is negligent.
- Hours later, a drunk driver crashes, runs off the road, and hits a pedestrian, knocking them into the hole. This is also negligent.
Here, the construction company created a dangerous condition, but the unforeseeable drunk driver could be considered a superseding cause. The drunk driver was independent. The crash was not caused by the construction work. The drunk driver’s collision was so unexpected that it will break the chain of causation for the construction company.
If you’ve been injured by a drunk driver in San Antonio or if you were injured on a San Antonio construction site, our law firm can help.
Another example of a superseding cause is when a product manufacturer includes appropriate warnings on its packaging, which a retailer later removes. The retailer’s actions are a superseding cause if a consumer receives an injury. The product manufacturer may be protected from liability.
If you’ve been harmed by a defective product in San Antonio, our lawyers can also assist with this.
What is an Independent Cause?
Under Texas law, an independent cause refers to something unexpected that happens after the defendant’s negligence or action that causes harm. If the new event is crucial enough on its own to cause harm, and if the new event could not have been reasonably foreseeable, the originally negligent person may not be held accountable.
This is because their actions or negligence are no longer viewed as the main cause of the accident or personal injury.
Superseding vs Intervening Cause
Foreseeability is the primary difference between an intervening cause and a superseding cause. This is a personal injury concept that attorneys use to determine what caused an accident. Foreseeability measures whether or not a reasonable person should have foreseen the consequences of the negligent person’s actions.
An intervening act becomes a superseding cause that removes a defendant’s liability if and only if the action should have been foreseeable to the defendant.
In some premises liability cases, defendants may try to minimize responsibility by asserting the open and obvious defense in Texas, claiming the hazardous condition was so obvious that the victim should have avoided it.
Foreseeability is the Test for Proximate Cause
The scope of liability is usually based on the foreseeability of the method and type of harm. The amount of damage caused does not restrict it.
Unforeseeable Type of Harm: If the harm doesn’t foreseeably stem from negligent behavior, then the third party is not liable for the plaintiff’s injury.
Unforeseeable Manner of Harm: If the superseding cause was unforeseeable, then the injured party cannot hold the person who caused the injury responsible for the injury. This is because the superseding act breaks the direct link between the damage and the action that caused it. When this happens, the at-fault person is often relieved of responsibility.
Examples of unforeseeable superseding causes include, but are not limited to:
- Hurricanes, earthquakes, and other acts of God
- Third-party torts and criminal acts, such as burglary, attacks, or injuries that occur on another’s property
We commonly handle personal injury lawsuits for crimes in San Antonio, and are adept at proving the defendant’s negligence in such cases.
Examples of foreseeable superseding causes include (the defendant does not escape liability):
- Harm inflicted by rescuers such as firefighters, medical personnel, and others who provide aid
- Ordinary negligence by healthcare workers
- Further injury or disease that occurs because of the injured party’s diminished condition
For malpractice claims assistance in San Antonio, consult our skilled attorneys.
Unforeseeable Extent of Harm
Whether the harm is predictable or not, a person who causes injury to another is liable to the full extent.
The “Eggshell Skull” Rule
The premise of the “Eggshell Skull” rule is that a reasonable person would take any injuries the victim sustained at face value, without diving into the specifics of what may or may not have happened if the injured victim didn’t have a preexisting condition.
Take, for instance, an accident that would cause a few thousand dollars in damage under ordinary circumstances, but the injured person has a rare condition that compounds the injuries. Due to the additional factor of the victim’s existing health condition, they now need $125,000 in medical care for their accident injuries. The negligent actor is held liable for the total amount of the victim’s injuries.
The Eggshell Rule protects victims who aren’t at fault for their condition. Defendants must take full responsibility for the injuries they’ve caused, regardless of whether the cost would differ if the victim didn’t have preexisting conditions that exacerbated the injury.
Superseding Intervening Cause in Injury Cases
In the average personal injury case, the “but-for test” may be used to determine causation for the damages a victim suffered. The test questions whether or not the victim would have sustained the injuries had it not been for the negligent actions or inaction.
If the answer is “no,” then the defendant is responsible for the victim’s injuries.
Any intervening or superseding causes are considered when determining liability. While the presence of an intervening cause probably won’t remove the defendant’s liability for the plaintiff’s injuries, they may share the liability with the party responsible for the intervening cause.
A case with a superseding cause may provide a defendant with full protection from liability. A claimant may be forced to file a claim against the party that caused the superseding act if this happens.
Also, injury victims might not be able to file a personal injury case if the superseding cause was an act of God.
Additionally, there are also situations where the victim knowingly exposes themselves to danger for whatever reason. Under the Texas assumption of risk doctrine, defendants can argue that plaintiffs voluntarily accepted the known hazards. This can reduce or totally eliminate liability in specific personal injury claims.
Can You File a Personal Injury Claim?
Injury victims must prove negligence in order to have a viable personal injury case. This involves establishing a proximate cause. Only once the personal injury attorney establishes proximate cause, may the injured file a personal injury claim. Injured victims may file a personal injury suit against multiple parties.
As mentioned, if a superseding event exists and holds enough merit, victims may be able to file a claim against the party responsible for the event.
Personal injury claims can become complicated quickly, so we encourage those who wish to file a claim to obtain competent legal counsel as quickly as possible. The skilled attorneys at Janicek Law are well-versed in intervening or superseding cause. They’ll explore the legal options in a free consultation and devise the best strategy for a successful outcome.
Experienced San Antonio Personal Injury Lawyers Can Help
The San Antonio personal injury lawyers at Janicek Law have extensive experience with superseding cause torts. Ensuring our clients receive full and fair compensation for injuries they sustain due to another person’s negligence or third person is always our goal.
We thoroughly investigate the legal cause of your critical issue and have the knowledge and skill necessary to present a strong case to a jury and win. Call the super lawyers at Janicek Law for a free consultation about your superseding intervening cause case today. Our phone number is (210) 366-4949.
Our firm also handles various legal issues, including San Antonio 18-wheeler accidents, San Antonio nursing home abuse, and more.
Establish your attorney-client relationship with our law firm by calling to set up a free consultation today.
Español de México