Question

To what extent is the concept of cause in fact versus proximate cause important in regard to CI’s liability?

Computer Installers (CI) Inc. is a company that sells, installs, and maintains computer networks for organizations that have large numbers of users. CI entered into a contract with Big Time Firm (BTF) to replace the firm’s computer network. CI’s contract included routine installation tasks such as laying network cable and wiring in the various offices to facilitate numerous network users simultaneously, installing new PCs in one-third of the network user stations, and setting up an appropriate network server with sufficient backup capability. CI arrived on March 1 and began work on rewiring BTF’s office to facilitate the new computer system. In the process of installing the new cabling for the network, a CI technician accidentally rewired the system that controlled the fire sprinklers and rendered the sprinklers inoperable.

Office Cleaners (OC) Inc. was cleaning BTF’s offices at night on March 2. One of OC’s employees left a lit cigarette in one of BTF’s restrooms. That night, as a result of the lit cigarette, a small fire began in the restroom. Because the sprinklers were inoperable, the fire spread and caused damage to the entire office and equipment in the amount of $50,000.

To what extent is the concept of cause in fact versus proximate cause important in regard to CI’s liability?

Answer 1

Proximate clause is the clause used by an injured person to prove that the injury happened to him due to the careless act of the defendant. This clause must have the factor of foreseeability associated to it. If the clause was foreseeable, then definitely the defendant is liable for the injury of the plaintiff.

In this case, the extent of CI’s liability for the fire can be checked by employing the BUT FOR Test. This test asks the simple question to check the applicability of the liability: But for the activities performed by X, would Y have occurred?”. In this scenario, the question will be ”But for CI’s responsibility in meddling with the wiring of fire sprinklers, would damage by fire could have been controlled by the fire sprinklers installed at BTF?”. It is pretty much clear that CI is completely responsible for this incident.

Proximate clause will delve more deeper in this situation and will help in extracting the root cause that made CI responsible. In this case, the plaintiff must highlight the activity conducted by CI, which made the fire sprinklers inoperable and thus the fire could not be controlled.