Depends on the facts

The tort of Negligence requires causation, the negligent act CAUSED the damage.

Causation usually needs to satisfy

(1) the negligent act was a but-for cause for the damage. That is, the negligent act has to be in the chain of events leading to the damage.

But-for cause can be many things, most of them remote. For example, you can say the dry-cleaner ruined my clothes, and that's why I was running late, and I got into accident. Dry cleaner's negligence was in the chain of events, therefore it is a but-for cause.  But it is unfair to ask the dry cleaner to pay for car crash. This is why in addition to but-for requirement...

(2) the negligent act has to be a proximate cause to the damage. This is a flexible rule, use your common sense. Would anyone foresee a mistaken report of school attendance leads to auto accidents? There is no 1/0 answer, really depends on the facts of a particular case.

Life is too complicated for 1/0 answers in most cases.

所有跟帖： 

• 謝謝解答。看來家長最好還是要遇事冷靜。 -水中撈月- ♂ (0 bytes) () 09/13/2014 postreply 21:30:15

• 不太可能，我遇到過類似的，好像身體和大腦不是自己的，沒法控製情緒 -慧惠- ♀ (51 bytes) () 09/13/2014 postreply 21:35:43