Proximate Cause – Vda.

De Bataclan

(Inks unique pie, weird)

That cause xxx

INCS – In Natural and Continuous Sequence
UNEIC – UNbroken by any Efficient and Intervening Cause
PI – which Produces the Injury
WIRD – WIthout which the result would not have occurred

Mixed Considerations
Flow Ko Pop

(FLo Co PoP)
xxx considering the Facts, Logic, Common Sense, Policy, and Precedent
- As to policy
o A matter of discretion upon the judges
o A tacit or frank admission by the Court that they decide
 Sir Vistan: in practice, consider putting yourself in the shoes of the
judges, as they seek a certain purpose or work from a certain point of
view

Concurrent Cause

xxx negligence, concurring with one or more efficient causes other than plaintiff’s, is the
proximate cause of the injury (Far Eastern v. CA)

explanation:
 When one’s act concurs or is simultaneous with another act or omission which is
negligent, and brings about the same result or injury, this said concurrent act
contributes to the one whole proximate cause
 N1 + N2 + N3 = PC; Plaintiff can then proceed against any of the actors of Nx in
the formula
 If concurrent cause is itself an efficient cause contributing to the proximate
cause, any of the actors of each act may be held liable
 If just against any one Nx, it in itself cannot be independently considered a
proximate cause. The formula above, and jurisprudence, depict that concurrent
causes become together THE proximate cause
 Defense: if one’s concurring negligent act or cause is with that of the plaintiff,
that makes or assumes that the plaintiff’s act is itself the proximate cause, and
therefore the plaintiff cannot “xxx seek remedy for injury he himself caused.”

Intervening Cause
 Prosser and Keeton: xxx is so reasonably connected with it that the responsibility
should not be terminated
  Concept of foreseeable intervening cause
o Defendant is still liable when the succeeding negligent act is still
foreseeable within the scope and assumed risk or effects so connected
with his own said negligent act
o PHOENIX v. IAC
 Answerting the Vistan syllabus guide question:
o What makes in IC
 Independent from the original negligent act which set the natural
and continuous sequence in motion
 “xxx the cause without which the injury would not have
occurred, the result being within the foreseeable natural logical
consequence.”

Last Clear Chance

 That chance you should have taken to tell that person how much they mattered
to you. Edi sana naging kayo na, bago siya napunta sa iba.
 Answering the Vistan syllabus guide question:
o Looks not solely to what act happened last, or immediately prior to the
injury (why Sir Casis is loath therefor to call it proximate cause but rather
legal cause) but at the NATURE and CHARACTER of the act, and the risks
created
o NA-CHAR > xxx nature and character of the act and risks created
 Basic premise: if defendant had the last clear opportunity to avoid, he is liable
notwithstanding plaintiff’s negligence w/c ceases to be the proximate cause