Understanding Intervening and Superseding Causes in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Understanding Intervening and Superseding Causes in Florida Personal Injury Cases

Causation is an essential element of most personal injury claims, and it is never irrelevant. In real life, more than one cause can contribute to a personal injury. Intervening cause and superseding cause are two types of “second causes” that can affect the outcome of a personal injury claim.   

Different Types of Causation

Different Types of Causation

Florida law has defined several different types of causes that might apply, depending on the circumstances.

Actual Cause

“Actual cause” is “but-for” cause. X is the actual cause of an injury if you can say that the injury would not have occurred, but for X. You would not have broken your leg, for example, if the defendant had not run a stop light. Actual cause is almost always a criterion for establishing liability.

Proximate Cause

Proximate” means something like “near.” A cause of an injury constitutes a proximate cause when its relationship to the victim’s injury is so direct and immediate that it would be fair to hold the defendant liable for the victim’s injury. Freak accidents, for example, are so indirect that it wouldn’t be fair to hold the defendant liable for the victim’s injury. 

The term “proximate cause” is based on foreseeability. If, given the defendant’s action, the victim’s injury was reasonably foreseeable, then proximate cause exists. 

If the victim’s injury was an unforeseeable consequence of the defendant’s behavior, then proximate cause does not exist. If proximate cause is not present, neither is liability, even if the defendant’s act was the actual cause of the victim’s injury.

Intervening Cause

An intervening cause is a second cause that “intervenes” in the chain of causation between the first cause and the injury. An intervening cause may or may not rise to the level of a supervening cause (which will relieve the defendant of liability). Following are some examples:

  • A pedestrian steps into oncoming traffic, causing a speeding driver to swerve into another vehicle. The pedestrian’s behavior probably doesn’t relieve the driver of liability for the accident.
  • A construction company negligently fails to enforce safety regulations. A construction contractor subsequently fails to secure equipment, resulting in injury to a passerby. The construction company is probably liable for the injury to the passerby.
  • A property owner fails to repair a dilapidated staircase on a property that a tenant is renting. Meanwhile, the tenant fails to warn of a broken stair, and a guest suffers an injury. The landlord probably bears liability for the guest’s injury.
  • A shop owner negligently displays fireworks in a department store. An inebriated shopper bumps into the display, causing an explosion that injures several other shoppers. The shopper’s inebriation probably does not relieve the shop owner from liability for the explosion.

In all of the foregoing cases, the intervening causes probably do not rise to the level of supervening causes. The party responsible for the intervening cause (the pedestrian in the first example) might also bear liability for the accident.    

Superseding Cause

A superseding cause is a type of intervening cause that is consequential enough to relieve the defendant of liability because of its unforeseeability. The defendant’s release from liability will relate only to injuries that arose after the occurrence of the supervening cause. The defendant will still bear liability for injuries caused by events that they set in motion before the supervening cause occurred. The following are examples of superseding causes: 

  • A criminal intentionally injures a car accident victim while robbing them at the scene of the accident. The person who caused the original accident does not bear liability for the criminal assault.
  • The victim of a slip and fall accident dies of a stroke at the scene of the accident. The victim’s relatives sue for wrongful death. The party who caused the slip and fall accident is liable for the victim’s injuries related to the fall. They are not liable for wrongful death if the victim’s stroke was unrelated to the slip and fall accident.
  • A factory negligently allows toxic chemicals to leak into the nearby soil. Later, an earthquake releases these chemicals into the environment, resulting in injury. The factory is probably not liable for the earthquake’s effect on the leakage, at least if it occurred in an area not known for seismic activity.
  • A car manufacturer produces a car with defective brakes. Later, a driver of the car crashes during an unexpected blizzard, injuring a third party. The third-party sues the car manufacturer. The manufacturer might escape liability by pointing to the blizzard as a supervening cause.
     

In both intervening and supervening causes, the nature and foreseeability of the subsequent events play a crucial role in determining the extent of liability for the initial party.

Borderline Cases

Sometimes courts find it difficult to distinguish between intervening causes that are supervening, and intervening causes that do not supervene. Following are some examples. 

  • A hospital performs surgery on a car accident victim. The victim develops sepsis due to poor hospital hygiene, resulting in complications that delay their recovery. The patient sues the driver for the full amount of their losses, including losses from medical malpractice.
  • A slip and fall accident victim suffered a back injury years before their accident. After the accident, the victim is debilitated, but it is difficult to determine to what extent the slip and fall accident contributed to the victim’s condition.
  • A car is speeding down an icy road and hits a pedestrian. The city government had neglected to treat the road with rock salt, thereby contributing to the road’s dangerous condition. The driver seeks relief from liability due to the city’s failure to treat the road.
  • A driver causes a car accident by speeding through an intersection with malfunctioning traffic lights. The driver asserts that the malfunctioning traffic lights were a supervening cause, but the court is not so sure.
  • A shopper in the food court of a crowded mall carelessly bumps into a customer carrying hot coffee. The coffee spills onto a third party, causing severe burns. A court must decide the significance of the fact that the vendor kept the coffee at an excessively hot temperature.
  • A construction contractor fails to provide their employees with the required eye protection. An employee of another contractor commits a careless error, resulting in an eye injury to the employee of the first contractor. 

These are all scenarios where different courts might look at the question of supervening cause in different ways.

Comparative Fault

Even if the defendant’s behavior did cause an accident, the victim or a third party might share liability if the accident was partly their fault. In some cases this might completely relieve the defendant of liability.

Talk to a Florida Personal Injury Lawyer

In real-life scenarios, cause and effect can get extraordinarily complex. This is exactly why you might need a Florida personal injury lawyer to tease apart cause, effect, and liability. Under the contingency fee system that most reputable personal injury lawyers use, you won’t even have to pay attorney’s fees unless you win your claim.

If you have questions or need help with a related matter, don’t hesitate to contact your Gainesville personal injury lawyer from Allen Law Accident & Injury Lawyers at (877) 255-3652 for a free consultation.