How To Prove A California Intervening or Superseding Cause Defense

 

How To Prove A California Intervening or Superseding Cause Defense

 

In California, a defense of Intervening or Superseding Cause is defined as:

An action or event that occurs, after an original act or event occurs that sets a series of events into motion, and before the end result. The original action and the end result remain connected even though another intervening action occurs. An event which occurs after a negligent or dangerous act that affects the chain of causation to the ultimate damages that result and thus making the second actor liable rather than the first.

It simply means:

Someone else gets involved in an action that thereby removes or lessens the liability of the person who originally started the action.

There are 4 elements of the defense:

  • Element 1. The defendant caused harm or injury to the plaintiff. In a legal case, the defendant must have directly caused some kind of damage or injury to the plaintiff, meaning their actions led to the harm that the plaintiff is claiming.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant’s actions directly led to the hazardous condition that caused the plaintiff’s injury.
    * The plaintiff was in a location that was safe until the defendant’s negligence created a dangerous situation.
    * Witnesses observed the defendant engaging in reckless behavior immediately before the incident occurred.
    * The defendant failed to take necessary precautions, which directly contributed to the plaintiff’s harm.
    * Medical records indicate that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were a direct result of the defendant’s actions.

  • Element 2. A third party committed an intervening or superseding act that was the primary reason for the harm or injury to the plaintiff. A third party took an action that directly caused the harm to the plaintiff, making it the main reason for the injury instead of the original defendant’s actions.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The plaintiff was injured when a tree fell on their car, but the tree had been weakened by a storm that occurred just hours before the incident.
    * A third party negligently parked their vehicle in a manner that obstructed the view of oncoming traffic, leading to the accident.
    * The plaintiff ignored a warning sign indicating a hazardous condition, which was the direct cause of their injury.
    * A sudden medical emergency caused the defendant to lose control of their vehicle, resulting in the collision with the plaintiff.
    * The plaintiff was struck by a falling object that had been improperly secured by a third party working on a nearby construction site.

  • Element 3. The third party’s act occurred after the conduct of the defendant. In a legal case, this element means that the actions of someone else happened after the defendant’s actions, suggesting that the third party’s behavior, rather than the defendant’s, caused the harm or injury in question.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant’s actions took place on March 1, 2023, when the incident occurred.
    * The third party’s act, which allegedly contributed to the harm, did not occur until March 5, 2023.
    * Evidence shows that the defendant had completed all relevant conduct before the third party intervened.
    * Witness statements confirm that the third party’s actions were not initiated until after the defendant’s conduct was concluded.
    * The timeline of events clearly indicates that the defendant’s conduct preceded the third party’s involvement by several days.

  • Element 4. The defendant did not know and could not have reasonably foreseen that the actions of another party would intervene. The defendant is arguing that they were unaware and could not have reasonably predicted that someone else’s actions would disrupt the situation, meaning they shouldn’t be held responsible for the outcome caused by that unexpected interference.

    Facts that might support this element look like:

    * The defendant had no prior knowledge of the other party’s intentions or actions that led to the incident.
    * The circumstances surrounding the event were unpredictable and outside the defendant’s control.
    * The defendant had established safety protocols that were followed, which did not account for the unexpected actions of the other party.
    * There were no warning signs or indications that the other party would act in a manner that could cause harm.
    * The defendant was engaged in a lawful activity when the unforeseen actions of the other party occurred.

(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 433.)
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a Defense of Intervening or Superseding Cause, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge necessary to effectively present your Defense.

Prove Your CA Intervening or Superseding Cause Defense

U.S. Civil Cases Only

Just a moment please.