Practice question
An original negligent act merely furnishes the occasion. A subsequent distinct, unrelated act independently produces the injury, and the factfinder establishes that it efficiently breaks the natural chain. The claimant relies only on the earlier act being a historical but-for condition. Which is correct?
- Every historical condition remains proximate despite an efficient break.
- The independent cause must be ignored if the first actor was negligent.
- All earlier negligence automatically becomes intentional harm.
- The efficient independent cause can make the earlier circumstance remote; a but-for occasion alone does not establish legal proximity.
- The claimant automatically recovers from every person in the history.
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.