Concurrent Causation: Definition

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Concurrent causation is a legal theory that allows plaintiffs to recover damages from multiple defendants when two or more causes contribute to the plaintiff’s injuries. 
• The doctrine of concurrent causation is based on the principle that each person who contributes to causing an injury should be responsible for compensating the victim.
• Concurrent causation can come into play in many different types of accidents but is most commonly seen in car accidents and slip and fall cases.

What Is Concurrent Causation?

Concurrent causation is a legal concept that determines liability for a claim. It is where two or more different actions hold responsible for causing an injury.

Concurrent causation gets resolved by determining which of the actions took place at the same time and which was the cause of the other. Property damage can include anything from flood damage to damage from wind.

So before your home suffers substantial damage, you first want to make sure you have coverage for damage caused by natural disasters. Your insurance company will then accept your claims for damages.

In the matter of concurrent causation, however, there will be two causes to consider. For example, your home might sustain substantial damage due to heavy rain and electrical damage.

Your insurance provider will look at the extent of damage to determine the root cause. They will record the damage with photographs and conduct an inspection of your property. It’s important to note that damage to property can take on many forms. For example:

• Flooding damage 
• Earthquake damage
• Landslide damage
• Damage to structure
• Roof damage
• Rainwater damage
• Smoke damage
• Wind damage

But property isn’t the only thing covered by concurrent causation. Damage to people must also fall under consideration and coverage. 

A basic example of this is if a person trips on a loose carpet and falls onto a table, and then falls again onto a floor and breaks a bone. A court will likely hold both the carpet manufacturer and the floor manufacturer responsible. Why? Because they are both to blame for both injuries.

If two people get injured by the same event, it is possible to hold all of the people responsible who are directly responsible for causing the injury.

The people who are liable will be those who were negligent and acted with a reckless disregard for the safety of another. If a person was in another’s care, they may be liable if they were negligent.

Conclusions: Is Concurrent Causation Worth Resolving in Your Case?

For most cases, concurrent causation is not worth the time to resolve. However, there may be a rare situation where you want to resolve concurrent causation in your case.

If, for example, you are suing all of the people at the gym for causing minor injuries. You’re doing this because of the negligence of the owners. As such, you may want to add a concurrent causation claim because you would be able to hold more people responsible.

Examples of Concurrent Causation Disputes

There are a variety of different examples of concurrent causation disputes. Perhaps the most common example that arises in court is a case of medical negligence. This is where an individual is not given proper care due to the negligence of the medical provider.

In these cases, it is often the hospital or the medical provider responsible for the damages caused by the negligent actions.

In another example, a person gets injured while trespassing on another’s property. Trespassing is a legal activity that is always done at the person’s own risk. People who trespass on private property are doing so at their own risk.

If someone is trespassing and gets injured on private property, the property owner is not legally responsible for the injury. They can, however, sue for damages resulting from the trespassing.

Summary

Concurrent causation is often complex. If you are facing a concurrent causation dispute in court, there are several different ways you can resolve the issue. The most important thing to remember is that you should always contact a lawyer in the jurisdiction where the incident happened.