Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Torts - Week 5 - Cause - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Further clarified by jurisprudence, which provides that there must be a connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff. Restated; the negligence of the defendant must be the cause, and the injury must be the effect.
        
        Determined by the nature of its relationship to the injury. Not a matter of time and space, but a question of degree or gravity. This leads to the problem of how far back one should go to determine the proximate cause. Oftentimes, becomes a question of policy as opposed to any real objective measurement.
        
        Definition - that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred. (Batclan v. Medina)
        
        Requires that the proximate cause to produce the injury through a natural and continuous sequence of events, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause.
        
        Longer Definition - that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom(Bataclan)
        
        Expands concept - proximate cause - must either produce the injury immediately or set the events in motion. Imposes the requisite that the person responsible for the first event must have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of the act or omission that injury to some person might probably result.
        
        As defined by Casis - is a cause without which the injury would not have occurred; and results in the injury as a foreseeable and natural and probable consequence
        
        Proximate cause was necessary for the injury to occur and the type of injury must be one that could be foreseen, given the existence of the cause.
        
        Chain of Events - if proximate cause does not immediately result in the injury, chain of events must have the ff: requirements to maintain proximate causation (1) each event must have a causal connection with its immediate predecessor or is part of a natural and continuous sequence; (2) the chain must be unbroken by an efficient intervening cause.
    - - While the rule is that there can be only one proximate cause, nevertheless two negligent acts can concur with each other. The existence of another efficient cause does not detract from the proximate causation of one.
        
        Concurrent Negligence - Where there are several causes producing an injury, the injury may be attributed to all or any of the causes and recovery may be had against any or all of the responsible persons depending on the circumstances. (Far Easter v. CA)
        
        Where there are several causes combining to produce injuries, the liability of one actor is not affected by the negligence of another. Recovery may be had against of the actors responsible.
        
        As differentiated from contributory negligence - a concurrent cause contributes to the accident itself, while the contributory negligence contributes to the injury.
        
        Criticisms - unclear whether or not a concurrent cause needs to be multiple proximate causes combined or, that it is a cause that combines with another to make one proximate cause.
        
        Efficient Cause - a cause, without which the injury would not have happened. Proximate cause is root efficient cause if chain of events.
        
        Scope - this covers action for recovery of an injured party against multiple negligent parties
      - Remote(Gabeto v. Araneta)
        
        Definition - A remote may be defined as a cause which would have been a proximate cause. Had there been no efficient intervening cause after it and prior to the injury.
        
        Remote Cause - negligent act which furnished a condition or gave rise to an occasion which made the injury possible. (Manila Electric v. Remoquillo)
        
        Generally, what is controlling is not the nature of the cause itself, but w/n there was an efficient intervening cause.
        
        Timing Element - Gabeto v. Araneta - Here, SC said that there was an appreciable amount of time from act of the alleged tortfeasor from the proximate cause of the injury + factoring in that it was the driver who was ultimately responsible anyways.(Horse running away).
        
        Basically, a cause broken by an efficient intervening cause
        
        Intervening Cause (Phoenix v. IAC)
        
        Used to resolve cases where an injury is the result of two successive negligent acts committed by two different actors. Intervening cause is a negligent act later than the original negligent act.
        
        Adopted from common law - if the intervening cause is a significant part of or, is reasonably connected with the risk created by the defendant, then the defendant is still liable.
        
        Foreseeable Intervening Cause - Generally, if the subsequent negligent act is foreseeable such that it can be reasonably anticipated to result from the original negligent act, then the original negligent person is still liable.
        
        Defendant Not Liable - when they could not have foreseen any danger of direct injury or any risk from an intervening cause (Phoenix v. IAC)
        
        Efficient Intervening Cause - an intervening cause not foreseeable from the original negligent act such that it breaks the causal chain from the original negligent act.
        
        Here, the more recent negligent actor is always liable, question is liability of the earlier negligent actor.
- - - - Adoption in PH - adopted in definition in Bataclan v. Medina - that cause, which, in natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and without which the result would not have occurred.
        
        Application - not strictly applied, as requiring definite proof of causation would effectively immunize culpable defendants because of the inherent difficulty in proving causation, especially in cases involving multiple defendants.
        
        Remedy to multiple defendants - doctrine of concurrent causation. Casis says concept needs a fuller exposition.
        
        Longer Bataclan Definition - the proximate legal cause is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by setting other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate predecessor, the final event in the chain immediately effecting the injury as a natural and probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that the person responsible for the first event should, as an ordinarily prudent and intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment of his act or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom."
    - - Definition - requires a demonstration of a reasonable connection between the act or omission and the injury. (Dy Teban v. Jose Ching)
        
        Essentially, a relaxed but-for test.
        
        If there is a reasonable connection between act and injury, then proximate cause may be established.
      - Substantial Factor Test
        
        Definition - if the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the injury, then even if there were other causes contributing tot he injury the actor is still liable. (Philippine Rabbit v. IAC)
        
        Criticism - the test presumes that negligence can be distinguished and measured in comparison with other factors or other negligent acts.
        
        Mixed Considerations
        
        Definition - There is no exact mathematical formula to determine proximate cause. It is based upon mixed considerations of logic, common sense, policy and precedent. (Dy Teban)
        
        Criticism Casis points out that this alludes to the fact that there really is no test to determine proximate case. Instead, Court can take any factor into considerations to the effect that the determination of proximate cause becomes a matter of policy.
        
        Cause v. Condition
        
        Definition - the negligent act merely furnished a condition which made the injury possible, but not its cause. (Phoenix v. IAC)
        
        This attempts to make a distinction between the active cause of the injury and, an existing static condition that mad the damage possible. If condition, then no liability.
        
        Almost entirely discredited.
        
        Last Clear Chance
        
        History and Rationale
        
        Not explicitly a test for proximate cause but Casis says that its application here makes it at best a test for proximate cause.
        
        1 more item...
        
        Definition - Defined in two modes
        
        As to the effect on the right to recover of the plaintiff and;
        
        To establish the liability of the defendant.
        
        2 more items...