No, none of your business, here is some law

Your accident is a but-for cause, but not a proximate cause of the third person's injury. See the following excerpt for details:


http://bbs.wenxuecity.com/law/157091.html

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

所有跟帖： 

• thanks for the explanation. -海泠- ♀ (0 bytes) () 10/10/2014 postreply 08:56:18