Define: Dependent Intervening Cause

A dependent intervening cause refers to an event or action that occurs after the defendant’s initial negligent act but is directly caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence or intentional misconduct.

A dependent intervening cause can potentially reduce or eliminate the defendant’s liability if it is determined that the plaintiff’s actions were the primary cause of the harm suffered.

Yes, a defendant can still be held liable if it can be proven that their initial negligent act was a substantial factor in causing the harm, even if a dependent intervening cause occurred.

Factors such as foreseeability, causation, and the extent of the plaintiff’s negligence are considered when determining if a dependent intervening cause exists.

Yes, if the plaintiff’s own negligence is found to be a direct cause of the harm suffered, it can be considered a dependent intervening cause.

Yes, a defendant can argue that a dependent intervening cause should absolve them of liability by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s actions were the primary cause of the harm.

A dependent intervening cause is directly caused by the plaintiff’s own negligence or intentional misconduct, while an independent intervening cause is an unforeseeable event or action that breaks the chain of causation.

Contributory negligence refers to the plaintiff’s own negligence that contributes to the harm suffered, while a dependent intervening cause is a subsequent event or action caused by the plaintiff’s negligence.

If a dependent intervening cause is present, the plaintiff’s ability to recover damages may be reduced or eliminated, depending on the extent of their own negligence.

An attorney can prove the existence of a dependent intervening cause by presenting evidence, such as witness testimonies, expert opinions, and documentation, that demonstrates the plaintiff’s own negligence or intentional misconduct as the direct cause of the harm suffered.