Question

Homer's negligence caused an automobile accident with Bart. As a result of the collision, Bart's car collides with a telephone pole, causing it to fall. The falling pole then takes out some electrical power lines. The resulting power outage leaves Patty without any light in her apartment. As she fumbles in the darkness, she trips over her cat, falls, and is injured. Patty sues Homer. In order to avoid liability, Homer's best defense is that:

a. there is no actual cause between the negligence and the injury.
b. there is no proximate cause between the breach of duty and the injury.
c. Bart's car was the one that collided with the telephone pole.
d. the electrical power lines should not have have fallen under the force of a car.

Answer 1

B. there is no proximate cause between the breach of duty and the injury.

Step-by-step explanation:

In law, proximate cause is a situation when the action of the defendant is directly causing the negative situation that happened to the other party.

From the case above, Homer could try to argue to the judge/juries that the reason why Patty tripped is because of her cat rather than his crash.

The judge and juries can either agree or disagree with homer depending on their personal outlook of the situation. But nevertheless, it's the best defense that Homer has.