The third category of direct cause questions concerns situations in which the defendant`s action exposed a certain group of potential victims to a foreseeable risk, but the injured party did not belong to that group. Our previous discussion on the Palsgraf case is a perfect example. As you will recall, Judge Cardozo concluded that the explosion of the package exposed a certain group of potential victims who were in the danger zone to a foreseeable risk. Ms Palsgraf, who stood thirty metres away, did not belong to this group. As she did not belong to the group of foreseeable victims, the package that exploded was not considered the immediate cause of her injuries, although it was the actual cause of her injuries. Andrews J.A., on the other hand, is liable if the damage may be causally related to the negligent act. In this regard, Andrews J. completely avoids the problem of immediate cause. The actions of the person (or entity) who owes you a duty must be sufficiently related to your violations for the law to assume that the person caused your violations in the legal sense. If someone`s actions are a distant cause of your injury, they are not an immediate cause. However, if your injury did not occur “for” someone else`s actions, you can usually conclude that there was immediate causation. Usually, it`s a simple question. Eggshell Plaintiff: A plaintiff who is harmed by most people would not have suffered, either because of physical illness or extreme sensitivity.
For example, if a drunk driver enters and exits traffic and hits a pedestrian, causing massive bleeding and brain damage, the accident would not have occurred without the drunk driver`s poisoning. It is predictable that if a driver is drunk and makes his way through traffic, he can injure a pedestrian. However, a defendant cannot be held responsible for totally unforeseeable injuries. If the same drunk driver hits a warehouse full of explosives and there is an explosion that causes drivers to hit and hit the pedestrian, drunk driving is probably not the cause of the pedestrian`s injuries. Whether the defendant`s actions are the direct cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff depends on the predictability of the damage caused. See Parness v. Stadt Tempe, 600 P.2d 764 (Arizona, 1979). According to §55-7-13a, comparative fault can only be proven in West Virginia if there is an immediate cause. The comparative fault in West Virginia is changed. This means that the amount of damages a person can receive depends on their percentage of fault.
For example, if a victim of civil liability were found liable for 20% of his accident, he would only be entitled to compensation for 80% of his losses. As the example above shows, pre-existing conditions are not considered intermediate acts. (We will come back to intermediate actions in the next chapter). Pre-existing conditions are contributing factors that are already effective at the time of the defendant`s action. Although in the previous example, Ahab`s physical condition was combined with Ishmael`s negligence to cause an unexpected injury, Ahab`s physical condition, the heart problem, is not an intermediate action. It is considered part of the “fixed phase” in which an applicant operates. If a person is injured due to the negligence of another person or company, they can compensate for economic and non-financial damages resulting from the negligence. Among the elements that the plaintiff suing for negligence must prove is the fact that the defendant`s breach of duty was the real and immediate cause of his breaches. He must also prove duty, dereliction of duty and damages. But the immediate cause can also be the most difficult problem in a case of bodily injury. Not all distant causes of injury will give rise to a claim for damages. For example, if a distracted driver collides with a truck with explosives and the explosive explodes and kills the truck driver, distracted driving is a significant factor in the accident.
The distracted driver`s actions are ongoing until the truck explodes. However, if a distracted driver collides with a stop sign and a tractor-trailer driver turns left to prevent the accident scene from tipping particularly far, such that the part of the truck carrying explosives hits a parked car and explodes, killing a passing pedestrian, the distracted driver`s actions have only had an accidental impact on the pedestrian`s death. while the long-distance curve of the truck driver is a major factor in his death. The proximate cause can also be established if a person has anticipated the destructive costs of their actions and has taken steps to avoid them. Predictability is often used in tort cases, and questions are asked to determine the immediate cause, including: At every step, we make sure you understand how your case unfolds. This includes explaining the legal terms and how they relate to you. If we prove that your accident was due to the negligence of another party, we will use the terms “direct cause” and “actual”. Let`s take a look at what these terms mean. The case of Ms Palsgraf can also be used as an obvious example of the “harm included in risk” test. The harm included in the risk examines whether other persons could have been harmed by the actions of the accused. If it is established that this is the case, is Ms.
Palsgraf part of that group of people? Some States take into account the “except for” rule for immediate causes. This means understanding whether the infringement would occur without the defendant`s act or omission. If the offence would not have occurred without the defendant`s act, the immediate cause is proven. The case is also used in criminal law. For example, under the probable cause doctrine, the police must have reasonable grounds to commit a crime in order to arrest someone. The second category of immediate cause questions includes situations where the foreseeable claimant has been injured but an unexpected extent or type of damage has occurred.
