Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Efficient Intervening Cause: Definition and Concept

    Uploaded by

    glee
    2K views3 pages
    1. Efficient intervening cause negates liability by destroying the causal connection between the negligent act and injury. 2. There is no efficient intervening cause if the negligent act remains active or creates a new active risk leading to injury. 3. To be intervening, a cause must be independent of the original wrongdoer and break the causal connection so the original act is not the proximate cause of injury. Medical treatment of an injury is generally not considered an intervening cause.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Efficient-Intervening-Cause

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1. Efficient intervening cause negates liability by destroying the causal connection between the negligent act and injury. 2. There is no efficient intervening cause if the negligent act remains active or creates a new active risk leading to injury. 3. To be intervening, a cause must be independent of the original wrongdoer and break the causal connection so the original act is not the proximate cause of injury. Medical treatment of an injury is generally not considered an intervening cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    2K views3 pages

    Efficient Intervening Cause: Definition and Concept

    Uploaded by

    glee
    1. Efficient intervening cause negates liability by destroying the causal connection between the negligent act and injury. 2. There is no efficient intervening cause if the negligent act remains active or creates a new active risk leading to injury. 3. To be intervening, a cause must be independent of the original wrongdoer and break the causal connection so the original act is not the proximate cause of injury. Medical treatment of an injury is generally not considered an intervening cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    Efficient Intervening Cause

    Definition and Concept


    Efficient intervening cause (novus actus interviens) – one that destroys the causal
    connection between the negligent act and injury which negates liability.

    An intervening cause will be regarded as the proximate cause and the first cause will
    be regarded as too remote, where the chain of events is so broken that they become
    independent and cannot be said as the consequence of the primary cause.

    When Efficient Intervening Cause is not applicable


    There is no efficient intervening cause if the force created by the negligent act or
    omission have either:
    1. Remained active itself; or
    2. Created another force which remained active until it directly caused the result; or
    3. Created a new active risk of being acted upon by the active force that caused the
    result.

    Test of Sufficiency of Intervening Cause


     The intervening cause must be new and independent, not under control of the
    original wrongdoer, or one by which by the exercise of reasonable foresight and
    diligence, he should have anticipated and guarded against it.
     It must break the continuity of causal connection between the original negligent act
    and the injury so that the act or omission cannot be said to have been the efficient
    cause of the injury.

    When a Cause is not an Intervening Cause


    A cause is not intervening if it is already in operation at the time the negligent act is
    committed.

    Negligence of the Defendant


     The efficient intervening cause may be the negligence of the defendant
     The plaintiff may be negligence but the defendant’s negligence pre-empted the effect
    of such negligence.
    In Urbano vs IAC (G.R. No. 72964), although the petitioner did hack the victim with his
    bolo, leaving a wound, his death 22 days later, was due to an efficient intervening cause, not
    attributable to the petitioner. According to the medico legal report, there was no tetanus
    found in the wound when the victim was being treated. It is indeterminable when the
    victim got infected with tetanus, but he was seen weeks later after the incident, tending to
    his farm with his bare hands, exposing his wound. The Court held that there is a likelihood
    that the wound was but the remote cause and its subsequent infection, for failure to take
    necessary precautions, with tetanus may have been the proximate cause of Javier's death
    with which the petitioner had nothing to do.

    Foreseeable Intervening Cause


    In out jurisdiction, foreseeable intervening causes cannot be considered sufficient
    intervening causes.

    In the case of Phoenix Construction vs. IAC (148 SCRA 353), if the intervening cause
    is one which in ordinary experience is reasonably to be anticipated, or which the defendant
    has reason to anticipate under the particular circumstances, the defendant may be
    negligent, among other reasons, because of his failure to guard against it; or the defendant
    may be negligent only for that reason.

    If the intervening cause is a recurrent feature of the environment, it is not an


    efficient intervening cause because it is foreseeable.

    Medical Treatment as Intervening Cause


    A tortfeasor is liable for the consequence of negligence, mistake, or lack of skill of a
    physician or surgeon whose treatment aggravated the original injury.

    Basis for the Rule


    The additional harm is either:
    1. Part of the original injury
    2. The natural and probable consequences of the tortfeasor’s original negligence
    3. The normal incidence of medical care necessitated by the tortfeasor’s original
    negligence

    There will only be an efficient intervening cause where the original tortfeasor is not
    liable or a circumstance that mitigates liability depending on the circumstance if the
    injured failed to exercise reasonable care in securing the services of a competent physician
    or surgeon.
    Unforeseen and Unexpected Act or Cause
    An unforeseen and unexpected act of a third person may not be considered an
    efficient intervening cause if it is duplicative in nature or if merely aggravated the injury
    that resulted because of the prior cause. The same conclusion can be reached if the third
    person’s act is part of the causal set, together with the defendant’s negligence, that
    operated to cause the injury.

    Contributory Negligence
    Contributory negligence is a conduct on the part of the injured party, contributing as
    a legal cause to the harm he has suffered which falls below the standard to which he is
    required to conform for his own protection.

    Plaintiff’s Negligence is the Cause


    The negligence of the plaintiff is not contributory negligence if it is the only cause,
    that is, it is necessary and sufficient to produce the result.

    You might also like