Practice question
A person’s old purchase of a chair merely explains why the person was at a shop years later. At that later visit, a wholly distinct and independently caused event injures the person. The purchase had no active causal role beyond the occasion. Which is best?
- Every historical but-for condition is necessarily proximate.
- A historical occasion alone does not establish proximate cause of the distinct injury.
- Every purchase guarantees lifelong accident compensation.
- Only the person’s surname matters.
- The defendant’s wealth determines causation.
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.