Practice question
A defendant argues that the mere involvement of another person’s intentional act necessarily severs causation. The facts instead establish that the response was a foreseeable manifestation of the original danger and did not independently break the chain. Which is best?
- Intentional acts always sever regardless of foreseeability or causal role.
- No intentional act can ever sever any chain.
- The actor’s mental-state label alone is inconclusive; the event’s independence, foreseeability, and actual causal role must be examined.
- Only the number of actors matters.
- The original defendant’s negligence becomes irrelevant whenever two people appear.
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: character of intervening events and remote occasion.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2008/feb2008/gr_161803_2008.html — Dy Teban Trading v Ching, GR 161803, February 4 2008, main opinion: foreseeable consequence is not an efficient break.
- 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: winds and roofing sheet did not automatically break causal chain.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.