Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I. INTRODUCTION
In the ordinary days of our lives we encounter different people and we
engage in different activities. As human as we are, we may not be able to
control everything that will happen around us. No matter how we try to be
careful, there is the law of nature that calls for our fault. To do fault is easy
but to do better is difficult. This goes without saying that indeed we, as
human being, were not born perfect. Thus, regardless of the effort to keep
away ourselves from doing harm to others, we still injure someone without or
not even realizing it. Conversely, even if we manage to secure ourselves
from harm or injury, still there is that force that causes us injury.
Hence, in order to balance these conflicting interests, the law provides
for a remedy in order for a person injured by another to recover from his
losses due to such injury. Citing Article 2176 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines, it provides that whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another there being fault or negligence is obliged to pay for the damage
done. This very provision of law affords an aggrieved person to seek redress
for his right that has been violated by another. But before an aggrieved
person may recover, the law also provides that he must first prove that such
person who caused damage to him is indeed the one liable for the same. The
law seeks not only to help a person injured by another by compensating him
his losses but also to protect a person alleged to be liable for the damage by
affording the latter his rights to due process in order to be able to defend
himself from possible prosecution. In so doing, it is but necessary for the
aggrieved party to first convince the court that the three elements of quasidelict are present before an alleged tortfeasor may be held answerable for
his action. These elements are; 1)there must be an act or omission
constituting fault or negligence, 2) damage caused by the said act or
omission, and 3) causal relation between the damage and the act or
Page | 2
omission. Hence, proving negligence and damage alone will not suffice to
consider the defendant liable.
Corrective justice presupposes that the defendant has
caused harm to the plaintiff. It is this doing of harm that needs to
be corrected. So there must be a causal link between the
defendants conduct and the plaintiffs loss. Hence, without
proof of causation, the action for damages based on tort fails.
Page | 3
the bounds of correlative rights and duties as well as the point beyond which
the courts will decline causal connection.2
In other words, the question of proximate cause does not only involve cause
and effect analysis. It also involves policy considerations that limit the
liability of the defendants in negligence cases.
II. THIRD ELEMENT OF NEGLIGENCE: CAUSATION
As earlier pointed out, proof only of negligence and injury in negligence
cases will not suffice to render the defendant liable. The plaintiff must prove
that there is a causal relation or link between the defendants negligence
and the plaintiffs loss or injury suffered.
Courts in the United States, Canada, and Britain have long struggled
with the slippery concept of causation. Legal doctrine has been shaped over
the years to assist fact finders in determining the answer to the crucial
question in a negligence action: What made this incident happen?
An
In the case of
2 Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and damages, 2013 Edition, p. 328( Comstock v. Wilson, 76
A.L.R. 676, 257 NY 231.)
3 Knutsen, Erik S., Ambiguous Cause-in-Fact and Structured Causation: A MultiJurisdictional Approach: p. 251. TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, (Volume
38:249)
4 Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and Damages, 2013 Edition, p. 317
Page | 4
Bataclan vs. Medina5, the Supreme Court provides for a more comprehensive
definition of proximate cause which provides that, the proximate legal cause
is that acting first and producing the injury, either immediately or by settling
other events in motion, all constituting a natural and continuous chain of
events, each having a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain affecting the injury as a natural and
probable result of the cause which first acted, under such circumstances that
the person responsible for the first event should, as ordinarily prudent and
intelligent person, have reasonable ground to expect at the moment his act
or default that an injury to some person might probably result therefrom.
This definition of proximate cause includes the element of foreseeability.
Foreseeability involves the question of probability. The Supreme Court
explain that there is negligence if a prudent man in the position of the
tortfeasor would have foreseen that the effect harmful to another was
sufficiently probable to warrant his conduct or guarding against its
consequence.6 (cite specific event in this case)
Philippine Bank vs. Court of Appeals 7 also defines proximate cause which
included the element of foreseeability which goes this way:
The concept of proximate cause is well defined in our
corpus of jurisprudence as any cause which in natural and
continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the result complained of and without which
would not have occurred and from which it ought to have been
foreseen or reasonably anticipated by a person of ordinary case
that the injury complained of or some similar injury, would result
therefrom as a natural and probable consequence.
5 Bataclan vs. Medina, G.R. No. L- 10126
6 Picart v. Smith, G.R. No. L-12219, March 15, 1918, 37 Phil. 809
7 234 SCRA 435 (1994)
Page | 5
Page | 6
in
the
negligent
acts
of
the
defendants
and
the
circumstance that fire may have been communicated to the two other
houses through the first house instead of having been directly
11 Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. V. Sikes, 166 ALR 375, 196 Okla. 137, 168 P2d 1016.
12 Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and Damages, 2013 Edition, p. 321
13 G.R. No. L-15688, November 19, 1921
Page | 7
Page | 8
To find out further about proximate cause, two tests will be discussed
in the succeeding sections. The cause-in-fact test and policy test are
introduced by common law to assist our courts and as well as our lawyers
with their clients in determining proximate cause of an injury and matters
which should be considered in each and every case.
III. TESTS OF PROXIMATE CAUSE
A. Cause-in Fact Doctrine
Under traditional tort analysis, "cause in fact" has long been an
essential element in finding a defendant liable for a plaintiff's injury. Tort
theory generally has required that a plaintiff identify that the defendant's
act, omission, product, or dangerous animal was sufficiently connected to the
plaintiff's injury. By requiring that the plaintiff prove identification and
causation before a defendant is required to pay for a plaintiff's injuries, tort
law satisfies society's notion of justice.16
Cause-in-fact is traditionally considered to be less contentious and more
predictable than proximate cause.
17 Knutsen, Erik S., Ambiguous Cause-in-Fact and Structured Causation: A MultiJurisdictional Approach: p. 252. TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, (Volume 38:249):
http://www.tilj.org/content/journal/38/num2/Knutsen249.pdf
Page | 9
David
Hume
observed
in
Inquiry
Concerning
Human
P a g e | 10
In most negligence
actions where one plaintiff sues one negligent defendant, that defendants
20 Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and Damages, 2013 edition, p.331
P a g e | 11
P a g e | 12
P a g e | 13
The defendant will be liable for the injuries to the plaintiff where the
defendant was the substantial factor in causing the injury. The substantial
factor test, unlike the but-for test, addresses the issue of concurrent causes.
Concurrent causes are causes acting together to cause the injury, although
each cause by itself would not have caused the injury. If two causes combine
into one harm, one which cannot be cleanly divided, then each cause will be
considered as a substantial factor of the harm. For example if two fires
merge to cause an injury, the test to apply would be the substantial factor
test rather than the but-for test.
In Summer vs. Tice,
26
25 Zwier, Paul J., "CAUSE IN FACT" IN TORT LAW- A PHILOSOPHICAL AND HISTORICAL
EXAMINATION; Volume 31,p.776, DE PAUL LAW REVIEWER, (Vol. 31:769). @
http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2326&context=law-review,
p. 780
26 Morissette, Emily Lyn, Personal Injury and the Law of Torts for Paralegals;
Chapter 4: Third Element of Negligence: Causation of Injury; p. 45
P a g e | 14
As earlier stated, the substantial factor test is important in cases where there
are concurrent causes. Here the issues are not factual but conceptual: When
are harms attributable to the defendant whose own actions are combined
with those of other persons and natural events? The application of the butfor test will lead to an absurd conclusion if concurrent causes are involved.
For example, the plaintiff was injured when he fell from a horse, which was
frightened by two approaching vehicles. If the drivers of both vehicles, A and
B, were negligent and either vehicle was sufficient to frighten the horse, the
resort to the but-for test will result to an absurd conclusion that the
negligence of either driver cannot be considered the cause in fact of the
injury because the damage have likewise resulted if only one driver was
negligent. It cannot be said that the damage would not have resulted had
there been no negligence on the part of A. It cannot likewise be said that
damage would not have resulted had there been no negligence on the part
of B. However, under the substantial factor test, the concurrent causes will
still be considered as the cause-in-fact of the injury because the negligence
of both A and B are substantial factors in bringing about the injury. 27
Another case in point, the but for test is unworkable in
sorting out the cause-in-fact of damage to a plaintiffs property
resulting from two separately burning fires that converge
together to cause indivisible damage. If one fire is caused by the
defendants
negligence
and
one
is
caused
by
natural
P a g e | 15
P a g e | 16
P a g e | 17
32
this wise:
Analytically, the problem of proximate cause in turn can be
addressed in two distinct ways. One possibility is to ask whether
the chain of events that in fact occurred was sufficiently
foreseeable, natural, or probable at the outset for the
defendant to be held liable for the ultimate harm that ensued,
assuming the causation in fact can be established. That
judgment is made from the standpoint of the defendant at the
time the tortuous conduct was committed. The second approach
starts with the injury and works back towards the wrongful action
of the defendant, seeking to determine whether any act of a
third party or the plaintiff, or any event, severed the causal
connection between the harm and the defendants wrongful
conduct. Here the question is only whether, when all the
evidence is in, it is permissible to that the defendant did it, that
is, brought about the plaintiffs harm.33
Under the foreseeability test and other similar tests like the natural and
probable consequence test, the defendant is not liable for unforeseeable
consequences of his acts. The liability is limited within the risk created by the
31 Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and Damages, 2013 Edition, p. 340
32 Epstein, p. 468
33 Epstein, Ibid.
P a g e | 18
Foreseeability Test
In most personal injury cases, the answer to the question "Who
was at fault?" comes down to figuring out who was negligent.
Negligence is the failure, on the part of the person causing
the injury, to use the reasonable amount of care that is required
in a particular situation. In order to prove negligence, you have
to establish that the person causing the injury was not only the
actual cause of the injury, but also the proximate cause (or legal
cause), of the injury.
In order to be liable for negligence, the type of harm that
occurred must have been foreseeable. However, the extent of
the harm is not limited by what was or was not foreseeable. In
this article, well discuss some of the issues that may arise with
respect to proximate cause and foreseeability, when you're
trying to prove fault in a personal injury case.
What is Foreseeability?
Foreseeability is the leading test that is used to determine
proximate cause. The foreseeability test basically asks whether
the person causing the injury should have reasonably foreseen
the general consequences that would result because of his or her
conduct.
Foreseeability and Proximate Cause
The law limits the scope of liability based upon the
foreseeability of the type of the harm and the manner of the
P a g e | 19
harm, but not the extent of the harm. In this section, we'll
explain the distinctions.
A. Unforeseeable Type of Harm. A person who causes injury
to another is not liable if the type of harm does not foreseeably
flow from the negligent act.
For example, if Damon drops a glass bottle on the floor and
does not clean it up, Damon would be liable for the injuries
caused to anyone who cut themselves on the glass. However, if a
freak fire is somehow caused by sunlight that is magnified
through the broken glass, it is arguable that Damon would not be
liable for injuries caused by the fire because they are not a
foreseeable type of harm that would flow from the negligent act.
In other words, a fire is not a foreseeable result that might stem
from leaving shards of glass on the ground.
B. Unforeseeable Manner of Harm. A person who causes
injury to another person is not liable for a superseding cause
when the superseding cause itself was not foreseeable. In such a
situation, it is said that the superseding act breaks the causal
chain between the initial negligent act and the injury. That
means the person who committed the initial negligent act will be
relieved of liability.
For example, if David left a candle burning in his apartment
while he was at work, and, subsequently, a burglar broke into his
apartment and knocked the candle over, burning down the entire
building, David would likely not be liable for injuries sustained
because the burglar was an unforeseeable, superseding cause. In
reality, the issue would be argued by both sides of the case -- the
people who suffered losses from the fire arguing that the
P a g e | 20
P a g e | 21
The test of proximate cause which has been stated and applied
more often than any other is that which determines an injury to
be the proximate result of negligence only where the injury is the
natural and probable consequence of the wrongful act or
omission. The natural consequence of an act is the consequence
which ordinarily follows it. A probable consequence is one which
is more likely to follow than fail to follow its supposed cause but
it need not be one which necessarily follow such cause. Where
this test is used, ii is not enough to prove that an accident is the
natural consequence of the negligence. It must also have been
the probable consequence. Thus there was lack of causal
relationship between the plaintiffs injury and the alleged
negligence of the defendant, the operator of the market, in
grabbing the robber and attempting to disarm him, where after
the struggle had ended, the robber had commenced his flight,
and shot the plaintiff, since the robbers act was neither a natural
and
probable
consequence
of
the
defendants
resistance,
P a g e | 22
P a g e | 23
39
P a g e | 24
person.
Long
Island
Railroads
liability
for
an
P a g e | 25
P a g e | 26
The substantial factor test is likewise being applied in this jurisdiction. The
substantial factor test as it is contemplated in the Restatement, Second,
Torts of the American Law Institute had been cited in cases decided in this
jurisdiction.46 The very the same definition adopted in Bataclan reflects the
observation of one legal writer that the issue of proximate causation asks
whether the defendants conduct could be regarded as a substantial factor in
bringing about plaintiffs harm, and the inquiry is often translated into one
that asks whether any of the human actions or natural events that occur
after defendants but before the plaintiffs harm severs the causal connection
between them.47
It is believed that the NESS test can also be applied in multiple causation
cases. Since there is no statutory provision that fixes the applicable test,
there is room for the application of NESS test. The NESS test is gaining wider
acceptance because it is even reflected in the latest version of the
Restatement of torts. In Restatement (Third) of Torts, if a tortuous conduct of
a tortfeasor fails the but-for test because there is another set of conduct also
sufficient to cause the harm, the tortfeasors conduct is still a cause in fact or
factual cause.48
46 See Philippine Rabbit v. Court of Appeals, G.r. No. 66102, August 30, 1990
47 Epstein, p.468
48 Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and Damages, 2013 Edition,p.344
49 G.R. No. L-8385 ,March 24, 1914
P a g e | 27
P a g e | 28
P a g e | 29
51
V. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATIONS
In view of the foregoing, causation of an injury as an element in
negligence cases has been a matter which different scholars and
diverse jurisdictions have been studied for a long time. Such studies
continue to create different aspects of causation of an injury which
have been or would be a basis in determining negligence in each and
every case in different jurisdictions. Many tests have been used to
determine causation of an injury which tests may be based on
experiences, natural law, or varieties of laws in each country.
Determination of proximate cause has been decided in different cases
and different jurisdictions dependent upon the findings of each Courts
or juries upon examining the particular facts and evidences adduced
51 Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and Damages, 2013 Edition, pp. 347-349.
P a g e | 30
upon it. While other courts may use one type of tests in its jurisdiction
to derive at a solution in a case the same may not be applicable in
other jurisdictions. However, since natural law dictates, that each
action or omission may have the same effects in two or more countries
or jurisdictions, the Court in another country may refer or used the
same test as applied by another Court in one State as it may deem
applicable in a particular case within its jurisdiction.
Thus, the tests discussed above, cause-in-fact and policy tests
and their different types, were used for so long in different jurisdictions
in resolving negligence cases. Cause-in- fact test usually had been
used to determine the cause of an injury created or as a result of a
defendants action or omission towards the plaintiff. It determines
whether
or
not
indeed
committed
the
act
complained
of
by
P a g e | 31
it
is
but
necessary that the plaintiff should know the defendant in the first place. The
Courts cannot settle a case when in the first place there is no accused
therein. In our jurisdiction of course, it is but the duty of the Lawyer to help
his client to come up with answers to this questions and gather evidence to
P a g e | 32
establish his case. On the other hand, a defendant may not be held liable for
an act he has not committed or an allegation that he did an act which caused
an injury to another will not be successful in the absence of proof thereto.
More so, a defendants liability may be mitigated if warranted by facts of the
case.
Therefore, in deciding negligence cases, our Courts always look at the
factual circumstances in each case, the applicable laws and jurisprudence
which will help them achieve a just and reasonable decisions. The Tort law,
as applicable law in our jurisdiction will indeed achieve its major purposes: 1)
to provide a special means for adjusting the rights of the parties who might
otherwise take the law into their own hands, 2) deter wrongful conduct, 3) to
encourage social responsible behaviour; 4) to restore injured parties to their
original conditions, in so far as the law can do this by compensating them for
their injury.52
VII. REFERENCES
1. Aquino, Timoteo B., Torts and Damages, 2013 Edition
P a g e | 33
id=lIJuucgYpAsC&pg=PA113&lpg=PA113&dq=hindsight+test,
+torts&source=bl&ots=hvPg3E0Rb&sig=6ObKUtaOmwGRbJqCMQU_Iixu8cc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gEsKVdS3IojW8
gXQoYCoCg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=natural%20and
%20probable%20consequences%20doctrine%2C%20torts%20and
%20damages&f=false ; page 114
6. Tikriti, Amir; Foreseeability and Proximate Cause in an Injury Case;
http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/foreseeability-proximatecause.html;
7. Zwier, Paul J., "CAUSE IN FACT" IN TORT LAW- A PHILOSOPHICAL AND HISTORICAL
EXAMINATION; Volume 31,p.769: http://via.library.depaul.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2326&context=law-review
P a g e | 34
P a g e | 35
P a g e | 36
P a g e | 37