Understanding Proximate Cause and Foreseeability in Accident Claims
Personal injury accidents normally occur as a result of someone's negligence. When that happens, the injured party may file a personal injury claim to seek compensation. To prove negligence and win your claim, four elements must exist:
- Another party (a person or organization) had a duty of care to protect you.
- They breached that duty by not doing something that was legally required.
- You were injured because of this breach.
- The breach was the direct, or proximate, cause of your injury.
What is Proximate Cause?
Proximate cause is when an injury occurs as a direct, foreseeable and uninterrupted consequence of a separate specific cause. When a person is injured as a result of someone's action or failure to act, that action or omission is the proximate cause of the injury.
Proximate cause in negligence lawsuits can be complex because many accidents have more than one cause. When more than one reason exists for a person's injury, those additional reasons can be considered multiple proximate causes. The injury can therefore be the result of more than one party's negligence, including the injured person or an additional party.
Exceptions to the Rule - Intervening Forces
Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence occurs when an injured party shares some of the blame for his own injuries. Most states (45 out of 50) recognize the legal theory of comparative negligence.
Courts can assign percentages of liability for the cause of an accident in a negligence lawsuit: a certain percent of liability to the first party who is said to have caused the injuries, and another percentage to the injured party for his participation in the events which led to his injuries.
Example of Comparative Negligence
During an extended spell of freezing weather, employees at a mall placed a de-icing agent on all walkways and parking lots, doing everything reasonably possible to melt the ice, however some icy patches remained. They also placed "Beware of Ice" signs every five feet along all walkways. Customers had been entering and exiting the mall safely and without incident for the last few days. None fell, as all seemed to have observed the signs and were making sure they walked carefully.
One lady was in a rush. She ignored the signs and ran down the walkway. She was also wearing a new pair of shoes with slick leather soles. She fell on a patch of ice and broke her leg. Then she filed a negligence lawsuit against the mall, saying the mall's failure to make the walkway safe was the proximate cause of her injury.
The mall's attorneys argued that her fall was not the result of failing to make the walkway safe. They showed the court that the mall's management and personnel did everything possible to melt the ice and took proper action to protect customers. They went on to say the lady's disregard for the caution signs and running while wearing slick, leather-soled heels were all proximate causes of her fall. If the court was to find the mall liable, she should share some of the blame.
The defense of the mall was correct. This is a textbook case of comparative negligence where an injured party's actions are one of several causes of her injuries. In this negligence lawsuit, the lady sued the mall for her medical bills of $10,000, plus another $10,000 for her pain and suffering.
The court found that the mall was 20 percent responsible for the injuries and the lady was 80 percent responsible for her own injuries. The court ordered the mall to pay her $2,000 for her medical bills and $2,000 for pain and suffering. The lady was responsible for the rest.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is a legal theory that states if the injured party is found to be even one percent responsible for her injuries, she is completely barred from recovering any money. This legal concept is antiquated and only five states still use it: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Under contributory negligence, the lady in the above example would have been completely barred from receiving even 20 percent. In states that recognize contributory negligence, that lady wouldn't have been awarded any money, even if the court found that she was one percent liable and the mall 99 percent.
The "But For" Rule
Another way to determine proximate causation is the "but for" rule. It means that but for the action or omission of a person, the injury would not have occurred.
Example of "But for..."
During an extended spell of freezing weather, heavy ice accumulated in a mall's parking lot and on the entrance walkway. The mall's management decided to de-ice only the parking lot. They thought the large amount of foot traffic on the walkway would be enough to melt the ice. Management also didn't put up any "Caution: Beware of Ice" signs.
A lady wearing protective footwear saw the ice in the parking lot and on the walkway. She was very careful and walked slowly. As she neared the mall entrance, she slipped on a large piece of ice directly in the center of the walkway. She fell and broke her leg.
In this set of circumstances, the lady wouldn't have fallen but for the mall's failing to de-ice the walkway. Here the omission of the mall's management was clearly the sole proximate cause of her injury.
Foreseeable Events and Proximate Cause
Whether a negligence lawsuit relies on the rule of comparative negligence, contributory negligence or the but for rule, the proximate cause (an act or omission) of the injury must have been a foreseeable event with foreseeable consequences.
Laws are not set in stone for cases involving negligence, proximate cause and foreseeability. Each set of circumstances is different and each court decision is unique to the circumstances before it.
Non-Injury Personal Property Losses
Proximate cause can also apply to property losses in cases of personal injury. If the safety-conscious lady shattered her expensive watch when she fell and broke her leg on the neglected mall walkway, she could include the property loss in her suit.
Wearing a watch is a foreseeable situation, and but for the mall's failure to de-ice the walkway, her expensive watch wouldn't have been damaged. Therefore it's highly likely a court would find the mall liable for both her injuries and the cost of her watch.
Third Parties and Foreseeability
Proximate cause does not extend to third parties who may be injured in the extended circumstances of an accident. If the safety-conscious lady had been pushing a cart full of purchases, she might try to hang on to it to keep from falling on the icy walkway. Instead, the cart could have slipped out of her grasp and inadvertently crashed into another person and injured him.
Although the mall's failure to de-ice was clearly the proximate cause of the lady's injuries and property loss, it was not foreseeable that she would have inadvertently pushed a cart that would crash into another person. It is unlikely a court would find the mall liable for that third party's injuries, but he might have a negligence lawsuit against the injured lady.
How Much Is Your Case Worth?
New! Comments...