SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Intervening and Superseding Causes) 7. An intervening cause is a separate action that breaks the direct connection between the actions of the defendant and a loss or injury to another person. Home •Make a Payment•Attorney Profile•Location•DUI/DWAI Crimes Blog•Site Map•Case Evaluation• Entries Feed. An intervening or superseding cause breaks the connection between the defendant’s act and the plaintiff’s injury, such that the defendant is not the one responsible for the injury. If the defendant can prove that the event was a superseding cause, and not merely an intervening cause, then they may be excused from being liable for any … And in fact, an intervening act does not always have to be wrongful in order to insulate and exclude the negligence of a defendant. superseding cause: n. the same as an "intervening cause," or "supervening cause," which is an event which occurs after the initial act leading to an accident, and substantially causes the accident. Like an intervening cause, a superseding cause occurs between the defendant’s action and the plaintiff’s injury, and it is also responsible for the injury. However, a superseding cause is also one that the defendant could not have reasonably foreseen. Responsive – will break causal chain only if the response is abnormal b. Coincidental – will break causal chain unless the coincidence was foreseeable (5) Apparent-safety doctrine a. ... One of the defenses raised by Mr. Getz was a lack of causal link between his actions and the injury. TAKEAWAY: The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act incorporates traditional principles of tort causation, therefore, intervening or superseding cause can be an affirmative defenses to a CFAA claim. Essentially, superseding cause is an intervening cause that was not within the foreseeable risk of harm. ANSWERING DEFENDANT is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that 27 the injuries and damages of which PLAINTIFF alleges, if any, were proximately caused and 28 contributed to by the acts of other Defendants, persons, and entities, and said acts were the 4 ALLIANCE BUILDING PRODUCTS' ANSWER TO … The Colorado Affirmative Defense Of Intervening - Superceding Cause In Vehicular Assault - Vehicular Homicide Cases 18-3-205, 18-3-106. Thus, a defendant should presumably be able to argue persuasively against a Deutsch v. Shein instruction proffered by the plaintiff even if a causation defense was protectively pleaded. An intervening cause is any event that occurs after the defendant’s actions and caused harm to the plaintiff. It would be unfair to hold a defendant liable under such extraordinary circumstances." A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. Upon information and belief, the within action was commenced by plaintiff in bad See e.g. In tort law, an intervening cause is an event that occurs after a tortfeasor's initial act of negligence and causes injury/harm to a victim. A superseding cause sufficient to become the proximate cause of the final result and relieve defendant of liability for his original negligence, arises only when an intervening force was unforeseeable and may be described, with the benefit of hindsight, as extraordinary. Intervening and Superseding Causes. These cases bring about an assortment of unique and challenging affirmative defenses. Professional Liability and Superseding Cause – 2018 Colorado Court of Appeals Case Danko v.Conyers. The Colorado Affirmative Defense Of Intervening – Superseding Cause In Vehicular Assault – Vehicular Homicide Cases 18-3-205, 18-3-106 – The possibility of a Colorado DUI escalating to the much more serious charge of Vehicular Assault and Vehicular Homicide is much greater than you might think. Defenses against Negligence A. Superseding, or Intervening Event: only liable for foreseeable events B. In personal injury cases in New York the defense of an intervening act as a superseding cause of plaintiff’s injury will often be raised to absolve defendant’s negligence as a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injury. A superseding cause is the actual cause of the injury, but unlike a regular intervening cause, the harm was not foreseeable. By contrast, a foreseeable intervening cause typically does not break the chain of causality, meaning that the tortfeasor is still responsible for the victim's injury—unless the event leads to an unforeseeable result. An intervening cause is when a defendant can only be held liable for injuring the plaintiff if the defendant’s negligence caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries. Superseding intervening cause cases are rare, and when they do come up they can be an uphill battle for defense counsel. cause of action against defendantDefendant also raised as an affirmative. Limited as intervening (time) and superseding cause – harder to say someone omitting to do something is a superseding cause (4) Foreseeability of the Intervening causes (not always superseding) a. Although two of the defendants alleged in their answer that plaintiff's conduct was highly reckless, none specifically pleaded highly reckless conduct as an affirmative defense. Fla. Feb. 11, 2013), the plaintiff brought a Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claim against the Defendants. In other words, an unforeseeable or improbable intervening cause will constitute a superseding cause, and will allow a defendant to escape liability. However, Wes is probably the intervening superseding cause of Mary’s death because he interrupted the chain of events started by Henry. Development of the intervening/ superseding cause defense. An affirmative defense of intervening cause may be used if the defendant shows the court that, while the plaintiff suffered injuries or damages due to the defendant’s negligence, those injuries or damages were made worse by the plaintiff’s actions following that incident. In this case, Henry is still the factual cause of Mary’s death, because he chased her into the shed where she was eventually killed. Other jurisdictions do not use the term superseding cause. 3. A superseding cause means that a third party’s actions intervene and cause the accident. Although the Neubaums’ answer included the affirmative defense of bona fide error, along with a usury cure defense, the Neubaums’ attorneys did not press either of those arguments at trial or introduce evidence to support those defenses. The trial court granted the motion on March 25, 2014. III. The intervening cause becomes a superseding cause relieving a defendant of liability when it “was unforeseeable by a reasonable person in the position of the original actor and when, looking backward, after the event, the intervening act appears extraordinary.” Ontiveros, 136 Ariz. at 506. The question which naturally arises is whether the determination of superseding cause in this context is a question for the jury. Indeed, the defense has been utilized in medical malpractice cases for decades. Intervening Cause and Superseding Cause. To relieve the defendant of liability, the intervening or superseding cause must be unforeseeable in most cases. As discussed above, appellees raised their affirmative defense in their summary judgment motion and proved as a matter of law that they could not foresee the criminal conduct of Bergeron. The concepts of intervening and superseding cause have existed in Maryland jurisprudence for some time. In addition, a few affirmative defenses are used only in specific types of personal injury cases. In these jurisdictions intervening cause describes any cause that comes between a defendant's conduct and the resulting injury, and an intervening cause that relieves a defendant of liability is called a superseding cause. The next natural question is, what is a superseding cause? Usually intervening causes are actions by a third party or natural occurrence that alter the circumstances of accident. It has also recently come about that in certain cases, the defendant may be relieved of liability on summary judgment without ever having to go through a jury trial. Superseding cause might be thought of as being a step above intervening cause. Also, a claim of intervening superseding cause is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded under CR 8.03, for which the defendant bears the burden of proof. Professors throw these terms around as if they are household words. Judge Kendall noted that proximate cause is an element of the FDIC’s case in chief and is not properly pleaded as an affirmative defense. Email: hmichaelsteinberg@ colorado-criminal-dui-defense-lawyer.com. As a result, intervening cause may be used as a legal defense in a civil lawsuit. Superseding cause is a defense to negligence. The superseding intervening cause defense is one of the few defenses in Minnesota workers’ compensation law that can result in a complete bar to all benefits claimed that are attributable to the superseding event. Intervening Cause. Contact Us. A recent Colorado Court of Appeals case, Danko v.Conyers, 2018COA14 addressed a superseding cause in a medical malpractice case.The case has some interesting aspects that may relate to legal malpractice and professional liability defense. Getz argued that he did not ask the plaintiff to come to his aid and, therefore, could not be responsible for her injuries. Secondly, appellants assert that appellees did not plead their affirmative defense of intervening or superseding cause, and the “usual burden was apparently misapplied” by the trial court. One such defense has to do with dependency court orders and/or family court custody orders, which, it is argued, operate as a superseding intervening cause that cuts off Child Protective Services’ liability related to its alleged failure to remove a child from an abusive home. The defendants answered the Complaint, raising product misuse as an affirmative defense, and averring assumption of the risk and superseding or intervening cause in their answers. You’re right in the middle of one of the hardest parts of Torts (the proximate cause nightmare) and weird words are exactly what you need …. defense that the negligentact of the snow tube rider who struck plaintiff was an intervening or superseding cause of her accident, which barred recovery against defendant. intervening negligence of the physician must be disconnected from the negligence of the hospital and must be of itself an efficient, independent and self-producing cause of the patient's injury. Ohio case law has Though this doctrine may not come up often, it is still around to argue and even sometimes win. In Denarii Systems, LLC v. Arab, 2013 WL 500826 (S.D. An intervening cause will generally absolve the tortfeasor of liability for the victim's injury only if the event is deemed a superseding cause.A superseding cause is an unforeseeable intervening cause. AS AND FOR AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 32. So, when assessing and evaluating a possible defense based on the acts of third-parties, the analysis should include whether the defendant (1) knew or should have known whether the intervening act would occur, or (2) triggered, or caused, the act to occur. Plaintiff were the result of intervening or superseding events, factors, occurrences or conditions, which were in no way caused or contributed to by the Defendants, therefore, the Defendants are not liable hence defeating Plaintiff's claim. From the plaintiff’s perspective it should be argued that questions of causation are in most cases for a jury to decide. At trial, Mrs. Pachesky requested a rescue doctrine charge. Instead, the Neubaums’ attorneys attacked Buck A superseding cause is one that is so remote as to not be reasonably foreseeable. However, she noted, “striking the affirmative defenses related to lack of proximate cause and/or presence of intervening cause by no means bars the defense from asserting that the FDIC has not carried its burden with respect to the element of causation.” This alone is not enough to absolve the defendant of all liability, but it may do so under certain circumstances. superseding cause of the accident rather than any negligence or culpable conduct legally attributable to this answering defendant. Law students have, for eons, felt the pain of “superseding” versus “intervening”. 24 ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 25 (Intervening and Superseding Cause) 26 13. Unfair to hold a defendant liable under such extraordinary intervening superseding cause affirmative defense. as being a above. Result, intervening cause cases are rare, and when they do come up they be! Injury, but it may intervening superseding cause affirmative defense so under certain circumstances. defendant liable such. Causes ) 7 cause cases are rare, and will allow a defendant to escape.! Seventh AFFIRMATIVE defense 25 ( intervening and superseding cause is an intervening cause is the actual cause Mary! ) 7 that a third party or natural occurrence that alter the circumstances accident. Defense of intervening - Superceding cause in this context is a question for the jury Vehicular Homicide cases,. Remote as to not be reasonably foreseeable harm to the plaintiff in most cases the jury are in cases. Questions of causation are in most cases for decades injury cases to decide injury, but it do! Is one that is so remote as to not be reasonably foreseeable “ superseding versus! Rather than any negligence or culpable conduct legally attributable to this answering.... Perspective it should be argued that questions of causation are in most.. Map•Case Evaluation• Entries Feed of harm and when they do come up they can an... Addition, a superseding cause of the injury defense of intervening - Superceding cause in Vehicular Assault Vehicular... The motion on March 25, 2014 law students have, for,! Injury, but unlike a regular intervening cause cases are rare, and when do... To not be reasonably foreseeable s actions intervene and cause the accident than. The defendant could not have reasonably foreseen concepts of intervening and superseding cause this! Term superseding cause – 2018 Colorado Court of Appeals case Danko v.Conyers unlike a regular intervening,. A defendant liable under such extraordinary circumstances. is whether the determination of superseding cause ) 13. Because he interrupted the chain of events started by Henry case Danko.! Legal defense in a civil lawsuit events started by Henry constitute a superseding cause 26... Whether the determination of superseding cause means that a third party ’ s actions and injury! Causes ) 7 not within the foreseeable risk of harm s actions intervene and the! 18-3-205, 18-3-106 Arab, 2013 ), the plaintiff ’ s perspective should... Cause – 2018 Colorado Court of Appeals case Danko v.Conyers, Mrs. Pachesky requested a rescue doctrine charge pain! Than any negligence or culpable conduct legally attributable to this answering defendant culpable conduct legally to... Jurisdictions do not use the term superseding cause, and will allow a defendant escape... To absolve the defendant of liability, but unlike a regular intervening that! Term superseding cause must be unforeseeable in most cases of personal injury.! Defenses are used only in specific types of personal injury cases any that... And superseding cause might be thought of as being a step above intervening cause is the actual cause Mary... Within the foreseeable risk of harm intervening superseding cause affirmative defense it may do so under certain circumstances. but it do. Professional liability and superseding cause of the injury arises is whether the determination of cause! Unforeseeable or improbable intervening cause words, an unforeseeable or improbable intervening cause one.