Intervening Causes Are Not Necessarily Superseding Causes
posted on April 1st, 2004 in Intervening Causes by clintAn independent, intervening cause breaks the chain of causation. It is a neat legal fiction that serves to divorce a negligent act from the injury. The key to successful application of intervening cause is a lack of foreseeability. If the injury is unforeseeable, then there is no proximate cause and hence no liability. The law is equally clear, however, that “[a]n intervening act, which is a normal response created by negligence, is not a superseding, intervening cause so as to relieve the original wrongdoer of liability, provided the intervening act could have reasonably been foreseen and the conduct [of the original wrongdoer] was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.” Accordingly, “an intervening act will not exculpate the original wrongdoer unless it is shown that the intervening act could not reasonably be anticipated.” McClenahan v. Cooley, 806 S.W.2d 767, 775 (Tenn.1991); Haynes v. Hamilton County, 883 S.W.2d 606 (Tenn.1994). Whether such an act or event constitutes an intervening cause is always for the jury to determine unless the uncontroverted facts and inferences make it clear that all reasonable persons must agree on one proper outcome.