Which type of intervening cause is typically regarded as foreseeable?

Medical malpractice following an injury is typically regarded as a foreseeable intervening cause in tort law contexts. This is because, when a defendant's actions lead to an injury, it is a common expectation that the injured party may seek medical treatment. While it is understood that negligence could occur in the course of providing that treatment, it does not break the chain of causation established by the initial injury. Courts often consider medical treatment as a normal and expected response to an injury, thus rendering any potential malpractice foreseeable and within the scope of the original tortfeasor's liability.

In contrast, intervening causes like extreme weather conditions, intentional acts by third parties, or acts of vandalism are often deemed unforeseeable. Weather conditions can be too variable and uncertain to be anticipated in a tort context. Intentional acts generally imply a willful deviation from expected behaviors that disrupt the chain of causation. Similarly, acts of vandalism introduce a level of unpredictability that is not typically expected as a direct result of the initial negligent act. Thus, these factors prevent them from being considered foreseeable intervening causes.