Also known as: Restatement (Second) § 440 · superseding cause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An intervening act or force of a third person that by its operation prevents an original negligent actor from remaining liable for harm to another which the antecedent negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about.
Summit Gas delayed repairs on a known leak beneath a residential block. Chase attached a grill without permission during a festival and triggered an explosion intensified by the leak that injured Marion. The court treats Chase's criminal hookup as an independent force that severs liability for Summit Gas.
The City of Alexandria placed an unanchored sculpture in a busy atrium knowing school groups passed through daily. Isabel permitted twenty students to push against the sculpture which toppled onto Hal. The museum's knowledge of the risk keeps the teacher's lapse from qualifying as superseding.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Sky Hotels ignored repeated complaints about a nonfunctioning lot light for a month. Nina a complete stranger drove past better-lit lots and carjacked Dawn in the dim area. The court must decide whether the criminal act counts as superseding given the hotel's actual notice of the precise hazard.
Birch Media continued selling unsecured glass bottles in the upper balcony despite security warnings about intoxicated jostling. Henry entered through an unmonitored door became intoxicated and dropped a bottle onto Norman below. The prior warnings make the balcony conduct a foreseeable risk rather than superseding.
Luis waved an unloaded pistol at suspected shoplifters inside a convenience store in violation of a local ordinance. One teenager panicked and sprinted into traffic where a passing car struck and killed the teen. The panicked flight counts as a normal response that does not supersede Luis's liability.
The museum installed a visibly unstable sculpture in a high-traffic atrium frequented by school groups and posted only minimal barriers. Isabel's students crowded the sculpture which toppled onto Hal. The normal efforts of visitors to navigate the space do not relieve the museum of liability.
An intervening criminal act qualifies as superseding when it operates independently of the original negligence and prevents the antecedent conduct from remaining a substantial factor in the harm. Courts examine whether the criminal act was a normal consequence of the risk created or instead extraordinary and unforeseeable. Actual notice of the precise hazard created by the negligence often prevents superseding status.
Supporting sources
No. When the defendant knows school groups regularly visit and places an unstable object in their path the third party's failure to control the children is treated as a normal consequence rather than superseding. The museum's knowledge of the recurring risk keeps liability intact under the normal-response rules.
Supporting sources
The court weighs whether the criminal act was independent and unforeseeable or instead within the scope of the risk the negligence created. Repeated complaints and internal recognition that poor lighting increases crime risk show the harm remained within the created danger so the act does not supersede.
Supporting sources
The act is not superseding when the defendant received explicit warnings about the precise behavior and continued the conduct that enabled it. Foreseeability of intoxicated patrons mishandling unsecured items keeps the original negligence as a substantial factor.
Supporting sources
…of its approach limit a manufacturer’s liability if the subsequent alteration or modification was the sole proximate cause or a superseding cause leading to the plaintiffs injury. See Santiago v. Package Machinery Co. , supra, 123 Ill. App. 2d 312 (considering whether sole proximate cause of the injury was the conduct of another”…