Chapter 15-2 Superseding Cause (I.E., New, and Independent Cause)

• Jurisdiction: United States

15-2 Superseding Cause (I.E., New, and Independent Cause)

Superseding cause, or new and independent cause, is an inferential rebuttal defense that negates the causation element of the plaintiff's negligence claim by cutting the causal chain by virtue of an unforeseeable act or omission.⁸ The issue has also been considered in the context of tortious interference and civil conspiracy claims.⁹ A new and independent cause intervenes "between the original wrong and the final injury such that the injury is attributed to the new cause rather than the first and more remote cause."¹⁰ A concurring cause, in contrast, '"concurs with the continuing and co-operating original negligence in working the injury', leaving the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's harm intact."¹¹ Both superseding cause and concurring cause involve some intervening cause. The distinction lies in the effect the intervening cause has on the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's harm.¹² If the intervening cause is a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's negligence, the intervening cause is a concurring cause, not a superseding cause.¹³ If the intervening cause could not have been reasonably foreseen, except by "prophetic ken," then the intervening cause is a superseding cause.¹⁴ For example, in an auto accident case, the driver's negligence was the superseding cause of an auto accident that also involved negligence of a utility with respect to a traffic signal.¹⁵ By contrast, if an individual is injured such that they require medical care, negligence by the medical provider is a foreseeable consequence of the negligent act.

--------

Notes:

^[8] Dew v. Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 448 (Tex. 2006).

^[9] See, e.g., Immobiliere Jeuness Establissement v. Amegy Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 525 S.W.3d 875, 880 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, no pet.).

^[10] Stanfield v. Neubaum, 494 S.W.3d 90, 97 (Tex. 2016) (quoting Dew v. Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc., 208 S.W.3d 448, 450 (Tex. 2006) (plurality op.).

^[11] Stanfield v. Neubaum, 494 S.W.3d 90, 98 (Tex. 2016) (quoting Gulf, C. & S.F. Ry. Co. v. Ballew, 66 S.W.2d 659, 661 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1933, holding approved)).

^[12] See also Bell v. Campbell, 434 S.W.2d 117 (Tex. 1968) (discussing the distinction between concurring and superseding cause).

^[13] Stanfield v. Neubaum, 494 S.W.3d 90, 98 (Tex. 2016).

^[14] Stanfield v. Neubaum, 494 S.W.3d 90, 98 (Tex. 2016) (quoting Texas &...