Promixate cause
 is the cause which, in the natural and continous
sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening
cause, produces the injury, and without which the
result would have not occurred.
Remote cause
 that cause which some independent force merely
took advantage of to accomplish something not the
natural effect thereof.
 cannot be considered a legal cause of the damage.
Nearest cause
 that cause which is the last link in the chain of
events: the nearest in point of time of relation.
Concurrent causes
 Where several causes producing the injury are
concurrent and each is an efficient cause without
which the injurt would have not happened, the injury
may be attributed to all or any of the causes and
recovery may be had against any or all of the
responsible persons.
Efficient Intervening Cause
 it is the one which destroys the casual connection
between the negligent act and the injury and thereby
negatives liability
(novus actus interviens)
 It will be regarded as the proximate cause and the
first cause as too remote, where the chain of events is
so broken that they become independent and the
result cannot be said to be the consequences of the
primary cause.
Forseeable Intervening Cause
 when there is an opportunity to guard against it.
Unforseen and Unexpected Act or Cause
 the intervention of which is not sufficient to
releive the wrongdoer from the consequences of
negligence if such negligence directly and
proximately cooperates with the independent cause
in the resuting injury.
Policy Test
 A finding that the defendant’s negligence was the
casue in fact of the damage to the plaintiff will not
necessarily result in a finding that the same
nageligence is the proximate cause of the damage or
injurt to the plaintiff.
The law as a matter of policy, may limit the liability of
the defendant to certain consequences of action.
If the damage or injury to the plaintiff is beyond the
scope or limit of the liability fized by law, the
defendants conduct cannot be considered the
proximate cause of the damage.
Different Policy Tests
1. Forseeability Test;
2. Natural and Probable Consequence Test;
3. Natural and Ordinary or Direct Consequence
Test;
4. Hindsight Test;
5. Orbit of Risk Test; and
6. Substantial Factor Test
Cause-in-fact Test

Different Causes-in-fact tests:
1. But-for-test or Sine Qua Non Test
 Where the defendant’s conduct is the cause
in fact of the injury under the but- for test if
the damage ould not have resulted had there
been no negligence on the defendant’s part.
2. Substantial Factor Test
 Makes the negligent conduct the cause in
fact if the same if it was a substantial factor in
producing the injuries. In order to be a
substantial factor, the causes set in motion by
the defendant must continue until the
moment of the damage or at least down the
setting produced or preceeded the damage.
NESS Test
 It is important involving the problems regarding
concurrent causes. Under this test, the negligent act
or omission is a cause-in-fact of the damage if it is a
necessary element of the sufficient set.
NESS (Necessary Element of Sufficient Set)
 states that the condition contributed to come
consequence if and only if it was necessary for the
sufficiency of a set of existing antecedent conditions
that was sufficient for the occurrence of the
consequences.
Cause vs. Condition
 CAUSE CONDITION

Egg skull Doctrine

 This rule holds that a tortfeasor is liable for all
consequences resulting from their tortious
(usually negligent) activities leading to an injury to
another person, even if the victim suffers an
unusually high level of damage (e.g. due to a pre-
existing vulnerability or medical condition)

Last clear Chance



Dangerous Conditions


Causation
 Casual link between the defenedant’s conduct and
the plaintiffs loss.

What test is applied in the PH?

 But-for Test (Bataclan vs. Medina)
the cause should be that without which the damages
would not have resulted.
For duplicative cases – SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST
OR NESS TEST