Newton's Law - Another interpretation of Proximate Cause

The fire policy we know doesn't cover any loss or damage occasioned by, through, or in consequence of, directly or indirectly, an earthquake, volcanic eruption, or other convulsions of nature. An earthquake is an excluded peril, but loss by theft is an uninsured peril( other than as provided in the RSMDT clause).

- Dr Abhijit K. Chattoraj

In my last article, 'The Dilemma of Proximate Cause in view of the Varying Interpretations,' I referred to two laws, Bacon's Rule (immediate cause) and Newton's Rule (initial cause), that the courts often resort to in solving issues related to Proximate cause.

Look at this Scenario -A Classical Example of Newton's Law-Leyland Shipping Company owned a ship called The Ikaria (insured against perils of the sea) that was carrying gold from Southampton to the Port of Le Havre.A German U-Boat torpedoed it. The crew took the ship to Le Havre for repairs. The Harbour Master ordered that the vessel be moored at open sea. The vessel remained at open sea but sank due to a strong gale, becoming a total loss.

So what was the proximate cause of the loss of the ship in this case?

• The torpedoing by the submarine

• The subsequent storm (a marine peril, under the policy)?

The House of Lords, in this case, held that to determine the proximate cause, one must apply common sense, affirming that the proximate cause was not necessarily the last event before the loss occurred, but rather the event that constituted the dominant cause of the loss. The Court dismissed the notion held till that time that the peril closest in time to the loss should always be considered the proximate cause. In other words, the proximate cause has to be determined in terms of the efficiency of the cause. Causation is to be understood in its ordinary meaning, and not, for example, by its strict scientific meaning.