Causation is a key element of negligence and fault.

Attorneys use it as a defense because the entire car accident damages depend on this concept, learn why.

Causation is the area of negligence where things seem to get a little more complicated. Attorneys use causation as a defense, but it is an element of fault. What we are trying to determine here is that the duty you breached caused the ultimate harm.

A good example to illustrate my point is an accident where someone is not wearing a seatbelt. If you are in a car accident, and you are hit not wearing a seatbelt, you could be ticketed for not obeying the law.

Let us say that you are in your car, with the engine running, and you are parked legally within the lines of the parking stall, but you are not wearing a seat belt. A car comes rushing down the parking lot and plows into you.

Did you break the law? The answer is yes (in most states anyway). However, was your �breaking of the law� the cause of the accident? The answer is no! You were parked and someone came and hit you. The fact that you were not wearing a seatbelt had nothing to do with the two cars hitting each other.

In other words, there would not be causation between your breach and the ultimate harm. Since this is the case, you cannot be held at fault or negligent for the accident.

It is important to note that we are talking about causation for the collision of two vehicles, not causation for a possible injury to you.

If not wearing the seatbelt aggravated the injury, there could be negligence attributed to you for the injury portion but not for the damages to the car.

So causation is probably the most important element when defending yourself from fault. Adjusters seem to overlook this element. I personally did not look at it too much until I went to law school. There and later cases showed real power in this element.

The element of Causation is divided into two different steps. In order to have causation, the duty breached must be the ACTUAL CAUSE of the accident and it ALSO must be the LEGAL CAUSE of the accident. Say what? I know it sounds more complicated than it really is.

Learn how to dispute your citation with thetraffic ticket eBook

ACTUAL OR FACTUAL CAUSE

Did your breached duty actually caused the accident? Attorneys and judges apply two tests to answer this question. They apply one or the other but not both.

If we are talking about ONLY ONE factor that caused the accident, then we look at a BUT FOR TEST.

So in the example of the seatbelt the analysis would go like this. BUT FOR you wearing the seatbelt, the accident would not have happened? The answer is of course no. There is no factual cause and therefore no causation.

You can ask: BUT FOR you driving over the speed limit, the accident would not have happened? If the answer is yes, then there is a factual cause.

But do we have a factual cause in the accident below?

BUT FOR the vehicle not running the red light, the accident would not have happened? Yes, ok so we are done Right? The answer is no! remember, we are looking at more than one factor here.

We have the vehicle running the light, we have the possible lookout issue (you must look at the intersection before you go, even if it is green) from the vehicle that came into contact with the vehicle running the light. We also have to look at avoidance on both vehicles.

Here, the BUT FOR test would not reveal anything. BUT FOR the vehicle not looking before going on green, and thus exercising the duty of lookout, the accident would not have happened? The answer is also yes! They both cancel each other out.

So we must look at the second test where MORE THAN ONCE BREACH cause the accident. The test for that is a substantial factor test. Was the breach a substantial factor of the accident? Running the light was a substantial fact, so this vehicle was A FACTUAL cause of the accident.

We are not done, was the fact that the other vehicle did not wait or did not look before going into the intersection A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR of the accident? The answer is probably yes. You do not have to agree with me (and this is why there will be a lawsuit with attorneys involved), but you see the analysis.

It is important to see we are looking at A substantial factor, not THE substantial factor. If there is a breach that is substantial but not the main reason why the accident happened, then that party is FACTUALLY at fault.

So the above analysis is the first step of causation. The second step is:

LEGAL OR PROXIMATE CAUSE:

Are you the proximate cause of the accident? Say what? Proximate cause is where the law of torts (and car accidents) goes crazy.

This term is rooted in our history since the famous opinions in Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), a decision by the New York Court of Appeals (the highest court in the state) that have changed the way America looks at negligence. The facts of the case are not relevant to us, but the analysis of the majority opinion by Justice Cardozo and the dissenting opinion by Justice Andrews speak to LEGAL OR PROXIMATE CAUSE.

Which argument you follow depends in jurisdictions and the facts of the case. For car accidents, adjusters, insurance companies, judges, and lawyers follow the Cardozo argument. However, depending on the facts the Andrews argument could be used, so it is better to understand both.

The Cardozo argument:

Cardozo argues that for one person to be the Legal Cause of an accident three things need to exist:

1. Foreseeable plaintiff (or person injured)

2. Foreseeable harm

3. Foreseeable manner

When we talk about foreseeability, lawyers and judges will be looking for the �reasonable man� view. Is it foreseeable in the eyes of the reasonable man that this would happen? The reasonable man views are also a question for a jury.

However, let us take a look at Justice Cardozo analysis this element of causation:

1. Foreseeable plaintiff. If I just blow the stop sign, who can I foresee hurting? Probably people in that intersection, pedestrians, other cars and their passengers, my passengers, a dog, children playing there, etc. I cannot foresee injuring people three blocks away, or people in that same intersection the day after. The question to ask if you are following Cardozo�s view is this person a foreseeable plaintiff in my accident? If the answer is yes, then move on to two.

2. Foreseeable injury: What was this person ultimate injury? If I just blow the stop sign, it is foreseeable to see death, broken bones, severe bleeding, and other injuries. It is not foreseeable that me not stopping at the stop sign causes gunshots wounds, diabetes, cancer, and other illness.

3. Foreseeable manner: How was this person harmed? Again, If I do not stop at the stop sign, we can foresee an injury by a collision with a motor vehicle. Maybe someone will jump out of the way and hurt himself or herself some other way. We would not foresee that someone would be carrying explosives and that my impact would create a huge explosion in the neighborhood (Palsgraf case).

When using Cardozo analysis (the better of the two in my opinion) you must go down those three questions to determine if you or someone else was the proximate cause of the accident. This is required to show Causation and therefore negligence.

The Andrews argument:

If the ultimate damage has a casual relationship with the original negligence. Then the person that se that negligence will be responsible for damages.

If a person sets the forces of negligence, then all negligence for damages would be attributed to that person. What this means is this: If I hit you in a car accident and you are taking by ambulance because of injuries to your right arm, the ambulance gets in another accident where you are injured on the left arm, and when you get to the doctor performs the wrong operation on you.

What I am liable for? THE ENTIRE THING. I would have to pay for damages to both arms and the negligence of the doctors. When I hit you, I set off a series of events that would not have happened if I were not negligent in the first place.

Negligence will be attributed to me even if there are intervening causes. The only way that chain reaction of negligence can be broken is if there are INTERVENING SUPERSEDING causes. What are those? Things like criminal activity and earthquakes (and that is about it).

So if a car ran you over and left you there, and you are later stabbed by a bump that wants your money. The person that ran you would not be responsible for the stabbing (still has to pay for original injury).

If the police shows up and gives you a ticket, then you need to dispute it. Read thespeeding ticket eBook or the traffic ticket eBook to get your citation dismiss.

Causation in a nutshell:

Factual Cause:

Bur For test if one factor or

A substantial factor if two or more.

Proximate Cause:

Cardozo view:

Foreseeable Plaintiff

Foreseeable Injury Foreseeable manner

Andrews View:

Casual relationship unless intervining supersiding causes.

Causation is a key element of negligence, but there must be Damages. Learn more.

Regarding the Video on the Who is at Fault page

This a good exercise in the issue of causation. We know that there are many factors adding to this accident. The Van did not had his or her hazard lights on, the blue vehicle was going too fast, and the red vehicle war arguably going to fast. All of these factors added. So to find Causation we must do the A substantial factor Test:

As the fact that the Van did not have his hazards lights on a Substantial Factor in this accident. We can argue both ways, but I think it is not. The accident area had a lot of illumination, the hazard light would not be substantial enough to warn the blue vehicle.

The Blue vehicle was going too fast judging by the impact. We cannot say how fast, but the speed of this vehicle was clearly a substantial factor. If the blue car driver would have gone slower, he could have stop on time or change lanes at a safer time.

The Red vehicle arguably was going to fast. But he was not a substantial factor of the first impact. The accident would have occurred even if the read car was going at the speed limit.

So the argument that the van had something to do with the accident could almost fall completely in the first step of causation. The blue vehicle was clearly the a substantial factor and can move on to proximate cause. The red vehicle did not have causation as it was not a substantial factor of the first impact.

The second step of causation is Proximate Cause:

We are going to look at foreseeability here. Was it for foreseeable that if you wait on the middle of the road that another vehicle would come and hit you from behind? Yes, this fulfills the foreseeable plaintiff requirement. The next step is foreseeable Injury . Were these injuries foreseeable? The answer is again yes. The last step is foreseeable manner. The rear ender situation was completely foreseeable.

Therefore, if you believe that the lack of hazards lights on the van was enough to make it a factual cause, then we have proximate cause. If this is the case then the van has Causation in this accident.

The analysis for the blue vehicle is the same. All three factors were foreseeable, therefore the Red vehicle also has causation for the accident.

Causation is a key element of negligence, but there must be Damages. Learn more.

Enter your search termsSubmit search form

Web www.auto-insurance-claim-advice.com