Practice question
A negligently obstructed exit remains blocked during a foreseeable emergency. Occupants respond to an alarm in an ordinary way, and the obstruction causes the stipulated crush injury through a continuous sequence. The defendant says the alarm necessarily severs every link because it came later. Which is correct?
- Every later sound is an efficient intervening cause.
- The defendant cannot be liable unless it caused the alarm itself.
- Ordinary emergency movement is always legally unrelated to exit safety.
- The alarm’s later timing alone does not break a natural and foreseeable sequence; the causal role of the obstruction must be assessed.
- An exit obstruction can never be negligent.
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.