A driver negligently spills oil on a busy road, creating a slippery hazard. A few minutes later, a cyclist traveling on the road loses control and crashes due to the oil. While the cyclist is lying on the ground injured, a second driver, distracted by their cellphone, runs a red light, enters the intersection, and strikes the cyclist, causing further injuries. The cyclist sues the first driver for both the initial and subsequent injuries. Is the first driver liable for the injuries caused by the second driver?
The first driver and the second driver share liability because both contributed to the eventual harm sustained by the cyclist.
The first driver is responsible for all injuries because it was foreseeable that a hazardous road condition could contribute to additional accidents.
The first driver is not liable for the injuries caused by the second driver because the distracted driving is an independent act that interrupts the causal connection.
The first driver is liable for the second and initial injuries because the cyclist would have avoided the harm if the dangerous condition had not existed.
The first driver is not liable for the injuries caused by the second driver because the distracted driving constitutes an independent and unforeseen act that breaks the chain of proximate causation. While the first driver’s negligence was the cause of the initial injury, tort law limits liability when a separate, independent act intervenes and supersedes the initial negligence. Superseding causes disrupt the causal chain and relieve the original tortfeasor of liability for subsequent injuries. Other options confuse this principle by incorrectly linking the first driver’s actions to the second driver’s independent negligence or overgeneralizing legal foreseeability.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is proximate causation in tort law?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does it mean for a cause to be 'superseding'?