Practice question
A claimant points to an old negligent act only because it occurred before the injury. The court finds no natural causal connection between that act and the later impact. The claimant cites the rule that proximate cause need not be latest and says that alone proves the old act is proximate. Which is correct?
- Every earlier negligent act is automatically proximate.
- The rule eliminates all need to connect negligence with injury.
- The rule rejects a latest-event requirement but does not establish the missing causal chain on the stipulated facts.
- The first act must always be ignored.
- The defendant’s age determines the answer.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra1949/ra_386_1949.html — Civil Code, article2176.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/mar2017/gr_164749_2017.html — Abrogar v Cosmos Bottling, GR 164749, March 15 2017, main opinion: temporal proximity and natural causal chain.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2023/jun2023/gr_254395_2023.html — Davao del Norte Electric Cooperative v Heirs of Lucas, GR 254395, June 14 2023, main opinion: earlier operative negligence despite later events.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.