The proximate cause of an accident works to increase the likelihood for the occurrence of that specific event. Proof of a proximate cause can be used to lift some, or all, of the burden of responsibility on the defendant. Some proximate causes are superseding events; others are intervening events.
What is a superseding event?
It is the action of a 3rd party and is an act that has managed to disrupt the expected chain of events. That disruption causes an accident. That particular accident then becomes responsible for creation of an injury.
It adds to or supplements a recognized cause and proof for the existence of a superseding event can relieve the defendant of liability.
What is an intervening event?
• It is an event that should have been foreseen by the defendant.
• It enters the picture after the defendant’s negligent action has already had an effect.
• It could enter the picture after a defendant had failed to carry out an expected action.
• It is something that takes place due to either the action of another person or due to an act of nature.
Can an intervening event relieve a defendant of liability?
No, the definition of an intervening event indicates that the defendant must shoulder some responsibility for the accident that resulted from a combination of both someone’s negligence and an intervening event.
Still, the legal system does provide a judge with the ability to decide what percent of the events causing an accident had resulted from a defendant’s negligence, and what percent had resulted from an intervening event.
For that reason, a judge could declare an act of nature to have been a highly influential, intervening event, one that was the proximate cause for an injury, even a fatal injury.
How does a superseding event relate to a chain of events that has been responsible for causing an accident?
The superseding event manages to disrupt a recognized and safe chain. It could intensify the action of the person that started the chain, or it could cancel the action of the person that started the chain. The defendant has no control over the effect of a superseding event, as per personal injury lawyer in Spruce Grove.
The strong nature of the effect produced by a superseding event could make it the proximate cause of an accident. Hence, it could be pointed to as the proximate cause of an injury.
An act of nature would not be a superseding event, because it would overpower any chain of events, instead of stepping into a disruptive role. Still, it seems hard to identify the way that any defendant could foresee the occurrence of an intervening event. Perhaps that is why judges hesitate to blame defendants for nature’s effects.