Alex negligently leaves a heavy box precariously stacked on a shelf in a grocery store. During a busy afternoon, a customer accidentally knocks the shelf, causing the box to fall and injure another customer. Additionally, the store's security camera was malfunctioning, but it did not record the incident. Which of the following best describes the relationship between Alex's negligence and the injured customer's harm under the 'but for and substantial causes' analysis?
Alex's negligence was a but for cause of the injury because the harm would not have occurred without the negligent stacking of the box.
Alex's negligence was not a but for cause because the malfunctioning camera was also a contributing factor.
The malfunctioning camera was a substantial cause of the injury, independent of Alex's actions.
Both Alex's negligence and the camera malfunction were joint and several causes of the injury.
The correct answer identifies Alex's negligence as a 'but for' cause of the injury because but for the negligent stacking, the box would not have fallen. The malfunctioning camera is irrelevant to the causation. Other options might confuse additional factors or misapply the causation tests.
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 the 'but for' test in negligence cases?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What does 'substantial cause' mean in the context of negligence?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the malfunctioning security camera affect causation analysis?