Practice question
A negligently parked obstruction creates a collision risk. A road user’s ordinary, foreseeable avoidance response leads to the stipulated injury through a continuous causal sequence. No independent efficient cause is proved. Can the obstruction’s creator rely solely on the response being later?
- Yes, every steering movement severs every prior cause.
- Yes, all third-party actions are legally independent.
- Yes, only the final moving object can matter.
- Yes, the obstruction’s immobility makes it harmless as a matter of law.
- No, the foreseeable response can remain part of the causal chain.
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.