In summary, one of the key issues in a negligence claim is causation. You must prove that the defendant`s actions or misconduct led to your violations. Since the legal concept of causation includes cause in fact and immediate cause, you must have evidence to support both types of causation in order to win a bodily injury case. The immediate cause is the legal cause of an offence. It determines responsibility. The immediate cause may not be the last event before an injury has occurred, and it may not be the first event to set off a chain reaction. Instead, it is the cause that caused a foreseeable reaction and the cause in which the injury or damage in question would not have occurred. In many cases, it must be proved that the defendant`s negligence was both the actual and immediate cause of the offence. In other States, evidence of a major cause is sufficient. Direct causality is a minority test that deals only with the metaphysical concept of causality. [7] It doesn`t matter how predictable the outcome is, as long as the physical activity of the negligent party may be related to what actually happened. The main idea of direct causality is that there are no intermediate causes between an action and the resulting harm.
An intervening cause has several requirements: it must be 1) independent of the initial action, 2) be a voluntary human action or an abnormal natural event, and 3) occur between the initial action and the damage. In assault lawsuits in Maryland, a plaintiff is usually required to prove causation — that the defendant`s act (or inaction) caused the plaintiff`s accident and injuries. While it may seem simple, it can be incredibly complicated, especially since many courts consider two different types of causality necessary to win a case: direct and immediate causality. Direct causation is easier to understand – did the defendant`s act lead to the accident, so the accident would not have occurred without the defendant`s action? However, direct causality is not enough. Sometimes a defendant does something that leads directly to the accident, but the bond between the two is so broken that it is unfair to hold them accountable. Actual cause refers to the actual event that caused your accident. Also known as a cause in fact, this type of cause is very simple. For example, if you cross an intersection and a driver does not stop at a stop sign and hit your vehicle, their actions would be the real cause of your injuries. This is the main cause of the accident, regardless of how you investigate the accident. The essential factor concerns anything that contributes significantly to an injury. If an employee lifted heavy objects themselves and was injured, but also regularly practiced contact sports, it can be difficult to determine both the actual and immediate cause of the injury.
However, the employee could argue that lifting heavy objects was a major factor in worsening his injuries. The actual cause, also known as the cause, refers to the actual cause of your accident. For example, if you cross an intersection and an oncoming commercial vehicle passes over a red light, the actions of the truck driver are the real cause of the collision. Example: You play catch and your ball passes over a fence to someone else`s property. The fence is locked and a sign reads: “Do not enter; Bell. You ring the bell, and the owner opens the door and invites you to his property. You claim to have lost your ball. The owner tells you to wait for the goal while he gets your ball “because the yard is not safe”. The owner begins to fetch the ball and crosses his garden in a strange pattern. You become impatient and decide to follow him.
You walk on the grass and in a matter of seconds you notice that your feet are bleeding because there is glass everywhere. The owner knew the glass was there and didn`t tell you. But there may be questions as to whether the owner`s actions caused your injuries, as he warned you that the yard is dangerous and you should wait while he receives the ball. From a legal perspective, four factors are necessary to prove negligence: obligation, breach of duty, causation and damages. Duty refers to the obligation that a person owes to someone else in order not to cause harm. If this obligation is ignored or deliberately neglected, it will be considered a breach. Causality refers to how the violation caused the accident. Once proven, the plaintiff can focus on presenting the damages or losses they have suffered as a result.
If you are involved in an accident, it can be difficult to prove the real and immediate cause without legal representation. A California personal injury attorney will understand these legal rules and use their experience to create a compelling case in your favor. After consulting a doctor, contact an injury lawyer to discuss your claim. The cause, in fact, is sometimes called the “real cause.” In other words, you have to prove that the defendant actually caused your injuries. An example of this would be that if a driver passes over a red light and crushes your car with T-bones, it is likely that his behavior was actually the cause. Example: You are in a store and the item you want to buy is in a hallway blocked by a sign saying “slippery floor – stay away from the floor”. You decide to reach to get your item, which is almost at an arm`s length. When you arrive, your feet move down the aisle, and you slip and fall and injure your hip. A court may rule that the store was negligent in the way it blocked the aisle and that you were 0% to blame. The court could also rule that because you ignored a warning, you were 10% guilty, 50% guilty 90%, or even entirely guilty. Whatever the percentage, it will be deducted from your recovery. So if you have $10,000 in damages and you`re 25% to blame, you`ll only get $7,500 back.
The woman sued Starbucks for negligence. However, the court concluded that it could not sue Starbucks because there was no immediate cause. There were too many steps between ingesting the drink and burning the self-immolation, and the two events were not closely related enough to establish an immediate cause. Maybe it would be different if the plaintiff spilled the drink and burned herself on her way back to the table, but it was not predictable that she would lean into a strange position to drink, push the chair and lose her balance.