Practice question
A claimant proves that a remote act supplied only the setting for an injury. The court finds that a distinct, unrelated, independent efficient cause then produced the injury and broke the natural causal chain. The claimant insists the remote act remains proximate solely because the injury would not have occurred at that place otherwise. What is correct?
- Every geographic condition is a proximate cause.
- The court must ignore the independent cause.
- A merely historical condition does not become proximate solely through that but-for location argument when the stipulated efficient cause broke the chain.
- Every independent cause automatically ratifies earlier negligence.
- No negligence claim ever requires causal proof.
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: natural continuous chain and efficient intervening cause.
- 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: foreseeable causal sequence.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.