Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
causation - intervening natural forces
A hits B with his car and B suffers minor injuries. B is taken to hospital but on the way a freak gust of wind causes a roof tile to fly off smashing through the windscreen of the ambulence. It crashes and B suffers further injuries resulting in blindness.
If the gust of wind is seen as an act of god, and "breaks the chain of causation" making A not liable for her blindness, who is? who can she take action against to receive damages for her blindness or can't she?
If the gust of wind is seen as an act of god, and "breaks the chain of causation" making A not liable for her blindness, who is? who can she take action against to receive damages for her blindness or can't she?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by crespo9. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.In the case of Derdiarian v Felix Construction it was stated:
" If the intervening act is extraordinary and not foreseeable in the normal course of events or so far removed from the defendant�s conduct, it may break the chain of causation."
In your scenario it would be impossible for A to foresee this gust of wind and the consequences.
A is not responsible for the blindness.
Assuming the ambulance driver was driving in a proper manner and the gust of wind could not have been foreseen by an ambulance driver driving in a manner considered reasonable in all circumstances, then he is not responsible either.
Was the roof maintained or had the property owner been negligent to a degree that an ordinary property owner would consider the roof to be in an immediately dangerous condition? Could he be liable?
" If the intervening act is extraordinary and not foreseeable in the normal course of events or so far removed from the defendant�s conduct, it may break the chain of causation."
In your scenario it would be impossible for A to foresee this gust of wind and the consequences.
A is not responsible for the blindness.
Assuming the ambulance driver was driving in a proper manner and the gust of wind could not have been foreseen by an ambulance driver driving in a manner considered reasonable in all circumstances, then he is not responsible either.
Was the roof maintained or had the property owner been negligent to a degree that an ordinary property owner would consider the roof to be in an immediately dangerous condition? Could he be liable?
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.