CAUSATION

(Ronald Arvin C. Cusi)

The chapter highlighted that the defendant in order to be liable for

damages, his negligence should be proximate cause of the injury to the right
of the plaintiff or the injured party. This means that the negligence of the
former should be the cause, which in natural and continuous sequence,
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, and
without which the result would not have occurred.

There are several tests to determine whether the negligence is the

proximate cause of the injury. The first test is the “Cause-in-fact Test.”
Pursuant to said test, it is necessary that there is proof that defendant’s
conduct is a factor causing plaintiff’s damage. Under the said test, two
subtest should be present; the “Sine Qua Non Test” where it should be
considered that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s
negligent act; and the “Substantial Factor Test” where it makes the negligent
conduct the cause-in-fact damage if it was a substantial factor in producing
injuries.

Another test to be considered in determining whether the negligent act

is the proximate cause of an injury is the “Policy Test.” Under the said test,
the following shall be considered; a) foreseeability test; b) natural and
probable consequence test; c) natural and ordinary or direct consequence
test; d) hindsight test; e) orbit or risk test; f) substantial factor test. The
effect of foreseeability and natural and probable consequence tests is the
defendant is either not liable for the unforeseeable consequence of his acts,
or the liability is limited within the risk committed by the defendant’s
negligent acts. The effect of the remaining tests under the policy test
however are the defendant is liable for damages that are beyond risk, and,
the sequence from the effect of the defendant’s act upon conditions existing
and forces already in operation at the time, without the intervention of any
external forces.

Moreover, a causal connection between a negligent act and an injury

could be severed by an efficient intervening event. An intervening cause
must be new and independent, not under the control of the original
wrongdoer, or one which by the exercise of reasonable foresight and
diligence, he should have anticipated and guarded against it. It must break
the continuity of causal connection between the original negligent act of
omission and the injury so that the former cannot be said to have been the
efficient cause of the latter. In the existence of an efficient intervening
event, or if the defendant has proven the existence of such, his liability as to
the injury caused by his negligent act is thereby extinguished or mitigated.