When you’ve been hurt in an accident because of someone else’s mistake, the foundation of your claim rests on proving causation. You have to prove that their mistake directly caused your injury. Just showing they were negligent or careless isn’t enough. In Washington State, the law looks at this in two parts: proximate cause and superseding cause. Understanding these ideas is key to winning your personal injury case.
Proximate Cause and Actual Cause: The Foundation of Negligence
In Washington, the term “proximate cause” is used to describe two elements of causation: actual cause (also known as “cause in fact”) and legal cause.
- Proximate Cause and Actual Cause: Actual cause is a straightforward “but for” test. It asks whether the injury would have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent act. For instance, if a driver runs a red light and hits you, their act of running the red light is the actual cause of the car collision. Without that action, the accident would not have happened.
- Legal Cause: Legal cause is a more nuanced concept that addresses the foreseeability of the harm. Think of “legal cause” as a way of figuring out if the person who caused the accident should have seen the injury coming. The law doesn’t blame someone for every little thing that happens after their mistake, especially if it’s something completely random or unexpected. Instead, they’re only held responsible for injuries that were a likely or predictable result of their actions.
Together, these two elements form the basis of proximate cause. An injury must be the result of both an actual cause and a legal cause of the defendant’s negligence for them to be held liable.
Understanding Superseding vs Intervening Cause
Sometimes, things happen after an accident that can make it tricky to figure out who is responsible. This is where the ideas of intervening and superseding cause come in.
An intervening cause is something that happens after the initial mistake but before the injury. It doesn’t necessarily let the original person off the hook. In Washington, if the new event was a normal or predictable result of the first mistake, the original person is still responsible. For example, if a driver causes an accident and then someone gets hurt while trying to help, the driver is still likely responsible for that new injury because it’s predictable that people would stop to help.
So what is superseding cause? Superseding cause is something so unexpected and out of the blue that it completely breaks the connection between the original mistake and the injury. If a judge decides that this new, unpredictable event was the only reason the injury happened, then the person who made the first mistake is no longer responsible. The new event takes over and “supersedes” the original carelessness.
To show how this works, let’s look at some examples using Washington law:
Intervening Cause (Not Superseding): Imagine a driver runs a stop sign and hits your car, breaking your arm. While you’re at the hospital getting treated, a nurse makes a small mistake that slightly delays your recovery. The nurse’s mistake is an intervening event, but it’s not a superseding cause because it’s a foreseeable risk of getting medical help for your injury. The driver who ran the stop sign would still be responsible for all of your damages, including the slight delay in your recovery.
Superseding Cause (Breaking the Chain): Now, let’s say a driver runs a red light and causes a crash. You get out of your car to wait for the police, and a huge, old tree branch suddenly and unexpectedly falls on you, causing a new injury. In this situation, the falling branch could be a superseding cause. It’s an unpredictable and extraordinary event that has nothing to do with the driver’s carelessness. The driver would be responsible for the injuries from the car crash, but likely not for the injuries from the falling branch.
Remember, it’s often up to a jury to decide if something was predictable, which is why these issues are frequently a major point of disagreement in a lawsuit.
Why Legal Representation Is Crucial
Navigating these complex legal concepts on your own can be overwhelming. The defense will often try to introduce an argument of a superseding intervening cause, suggesting that some other, separate event was the cause of the injury, to minimize or eliminate their client’s liability so that they don’t have to pay. Whether you are dealing with a broken bone or more serious, catastrophic injuries, our team of skilled personal injury attorneys at Ron Meyers and Associates is here to provide essential representation and support.
Our team knows Washington’s laws inside and out. We will thoroughly investigate your case, and we are ready to fight back against a potential “superseding cause” defense to protect your right to full and fair compensation. Call and schedule a free consultation to discuss how our dedicated legal team is committed to getting you the justice that you deserve.
