#THE LAW OF CAUSALITY DRIVER#

For example, a person throws a lighted match into a wastepaper basket that starts a fire that burns down a building. This is a concept in the law of torts and involves the question of whether a defendant's conduct is so significant as to make him or her liable for a resulting injury. The proximate cause of an injury is the act or omission of an act without which the harm would not have occurred.

Proximate, Unforeseeable, and Remote Cause The intervening efficient cause thereby broke the causal connection between the original wrong of the faulty brakes and the injury. The injury resulting to the passenger is attributable to the driver's condition. An accident occurs, which is a direct result of the intoxication rather than the faulty brakes. For example, an intoxicated cabdriver transports a person in a cab with faulty brakes.

#THE LAW OF CAUSALITY DRIVER#

Depending upon how hard the driver hit the pole, the driver may be held contributorily negligent, or partially liable, for the accident that took place.ДЄn intervening efficient cause is one that totally supersedes the original wrongful act or omission. If the telephone company knew or should have known about the unsafe condition of the pole and negligently failed to replace it, the telephone company would be responsible for the harm caused by the falling pole.

This is important in determining the liability of the intoxicated driver. If someone driving under the influence of alcohol grazes a telephone pole that is rotted and thus knocks it down, the condition of the pole would be the intervening cause of its collapse. It comes between an expected sequence of occurrences to produce an unanticipated result. If one person stabs another person who is simultaneously being shot by a third person, either act alone could cause the person's injury.ДЄn Intervening Cause is one that interrupts the normal flow of events between the wrong and the injury. They are contemporaneous, but either event alone would bring about the effect that occurs. In some cases the actual cause and the immediate cause of an injury may be the same.Д¬oncurrent causes are events occurring simultaneously to produce a given result.

The immediate cause of the injury in this case would be the fall, since it is the cause that came right before the injury, with no intermediate causes. If one person shoves another, thereby knocking the other person out an open window and he or she breaks a leg as a result of the fall, the shove is the actual cause of the injury. The actual cause is the event directly responsible for an injury. Actual, Concurrent, and Intervening Cause The plaintiff must prove that his or her injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's Negligence or intentional conduct. A defendant's liability is contingent upon the connection between his or her conduct and the injury to the plaintiff. The injured party must establish that the other person brought about the alleged harm. In the law of torts, the concept of causality is essential to a person's ability to successfully bring an action for injury against another person. This requirement is imposed to protect people from unreasonable or unrestricted invasions or intrusions by the government. Before someone may be arrested or searched by a police officer without a warrant, probable cause must exist. In Criminal Procedure, Probable Cause is the reasonable basis for the belief that someone has committed a particular crime. If an individual is fired from a job at the bank for Embezzlement, he or she is fired for cause-as distinguished from decisions or actions considered to be Arbitrary or capricious. Any question, civil or criminal, litigated or contested before a court of justice. That which in some manner is accountable for a condition that brings about an effect or that produces a cause for the resultant action or state.ДЄ suit, litigation, or action. Something that precedes and brings about an effect or a result.

The law of causality