Question

"Blow up." Jeanie is hauling gas in the back of her pick-up truck for her personal watercraft. She is planning a lake party and thinks she will need a lot of it. On the way home, Jeanie stops at the automatic teller machine at her bank and exits her car. Holly pulls behind her and negligently rear-ends Jeanie's pick-up. The truck explodes and results in the bank building burning to the ground. The bank sues Holly for negligence claiming that Holly should have to pay for the entire bank building. The bank claimed that it should be able to recover under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.
Which of the following is true regarding whether actual cause exists in the bank's action against Holly?
a. Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been burnt down if Holly had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.
b. Holly is not the proximate cause of the bank burning because it was not foreseeable that Jeanie would have gas in the back of her pick-up truck that would result in such a fire.
c. The bank is incorrect because the issue here is causation, not whether there was a lack of due care.

Answer 1

Answer:a) Actual causation would exist because the bank would not have been burnt down if Holly had fulfilled her duty to drive properly.

Explanation:

What is meant by actual causation?

It refers to the presence of a factor which leads to an incident but in its absence the event would have not resulted or occured. If Holly did not have the gas tank with her there would have not been a cause for the bank to explode and if she didn't pull negligently rear ends Jennie's pick up.