- For English law, see Causation in English law
In the law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to a legally recognizable injury to be held the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law, cause-in-fact and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but-for" test: but for the action, the result would not have happened. For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred. For an act to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact. Image File history File links SmallLadyJustice. ...
In the common law, a tort is a civil wrong, other than a breach of contract, for which the law provides a remedy. ...
This article concerns the common-law legal system, as contrasted with the civil law legal system; for other meanings of the term, within the field of law, see common law (disambiguation). ...
In law, negligence is a type of tort or delict that can be either criminal or civil in nature. ...
Negligent hiring is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party is held liable for negligence because they placed another party in a position of authority or responsibility, and an injury resulted because of this placement. ...
Negligent entrustment is a cause of action in tort law that arises where one party (the entrustor) is held liable for negligence because they negligently provided another party (the entrustee) with a dangerous instrumentality, and the entrusted party caused injury to a third party with that instrumentality. ...
The tort of negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) is a controversial legal theory and is not accepted in many United States jurisdictions. ...
In law, a duty of care is the legal requirement that a person exercise a reasonable standard of care to prevent injury of others. ...
In tort law, the standard of care is the degree of prudence and caution required of an individual who is under a duty of care. ...
Res ipsa loquitur is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, The thing speaks for itself. The doctrine is applied to claims which, as a matter of law, do not have to be explained beyond the obvious facts. ...
The calculus of negligence is a term coined by Judge Learned Hand and describes a process for determining whether a legal duty of care has been breached (see negligence). ...
The eggshell skull rule (or thin-skull rule) is a legal doctrine used in both tort law and criminal law that holds an individual liable for all consequences resulting from their activities leading to an injury to another person, even if the victim suffers unusual damages due to a pre...
Vicarious liability is a form of strict, secondary liability that arises under the common law doctrine of agency – respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the acts of their subordinate and can be distinguished from contributory liability, another form of secondary liability, which is rooted in the tort theory...
Under the attractive nuisance doctrine of the law of torts, a landowner may be held liable for injuries to children trespassing on the land if the injury is caused by a hazardous object or condition on the land that is likely to attract children, who are unable to appreciate the...
The rescue doctrine of the law of torts holds that, where a tortfeasor creates a circumstance that places the tort victim in danger, the tortfeasor is liable not only for the harm caused to the victim, but also the harm caused to any person injured in an effort to rescue...
A duty to rescue is a concept in the law of torts that arises in a narrow number of cases, describing a circumstance in which a party can be held liable for failing to come to the rescue of another party in peril. ...
Comparative responsibility is a doctrine of tort law that compares the fault of each party in a law suit for a single injury. ...
Trespasser (released in 1998) was a game taking place in the world of Jurassic Park. ...
A licensee is a term used in the law of torts to describe a person who is on the property of another, despite the fact that the property is not open to the general public, because the owner of the property has allowed the licensee to enter. ...
An invitee is a term used in the law of torts to describe a person who is on the property of another because that property owner has chosen to hold the property open to some portion of the general public, because the owner of the property has allowed the licensee...
Contributory negligence is a common law defence to a claim or action in tort. ...
Comparative negligence is a system of apportioning recovery for a tort based on a comparison of the plaintiffs negligence with the defendants. ...
This is a defense in the law of torts. ...
An intervening cause is a potential defense to the tort of negligence, if it is an unforseeable, and therefore superseding intervening cause, rather than a foreseeable intervening cause. ...
Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. ...
An ultrahazardous activity in the common law of torts is one that is so inherently dangerous that a person engaged in such an activity can be held strictly liable for injuries caused to another person, even if the person engaged in the activity took every reasonable precaution to prevent others...
Product liability encompasses a number of legal claims that allow an injured party to recover financial compensation from the manufacturer or seller of a product. ...
Nuisance is a common law tort. ...
A contract is a promise or an agreement that is enforced or recognized by the law. ...
Property law is the area of law that governs the various forms of ownership in real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions) and in personal property, within the common law legal system. ...
In the common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the testator) regulates the rights of others over his property or family after death. ...
The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of law which governs the management of personal affairs and the disposition of property of an individual in anticipation and the event of such persons incapacity or death, also known as the law of successions in civil law. ...
Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of common law that punishes criminals for committing offences against the state. ...
The law of evidence governs the use of testimony (e. ...
English law is a formal term of art that describes the law for the time being in force in England and Wales. ...
Law (from the late Old English lagu of probable North Germanic origin) in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, intended to provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide...
A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective. The primary examples are:
- Concurrent causes. Where two separate acts of negligence combine to cause an injury to a third party, each actor is liable, even though the injury would not have happened but for the negligence of the other actor. For example, a construction worker negligently leaves the cover off a manhole, and a careless driver negligently clips a pedestrian, forcing the pedestrian to fall into the open manhole. Both the construction worker and the careless driver are equally liable for the injury to the pedestrian.
- Sufficient combined causes. Where an injury results from two separate acts of negligence, either of which would have been sufficient to cause the injury, both actors are liable. For example, two campers in different parts of the woods negligently leave their campfires unattended. A forest fire results, but the same amount of property damage would have resulted from either fire. Both campers are equally liable for all damage.
- In the United States, the rule of Summers v. Tice [1] holds that where two parties are equally negligent, but only one causes an injury to a third party, the burden shifts to the negligent parties to prove that they were not the cause of the injury. In that case, two hunters negligently fired their shotguns in the direction of their guide, and a pellet lodged in his eye. Because it was impossible to tell which hunter fired the shot that caused the injury, the court held both hunters liable.
- Market share evidence. See Sindell v. Abbott Labs.
Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for punching me in the face, you would not broken my jaw), there is a second test used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause.
There are several competing theories of proximate cause.
Foreseeability
The most common test of proximate cause is foreseeability. It determines if the harm resulting from an action was reasonably able to be predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks a heavy object off of a shelf behind them, which causes a blunt-force injury.
There are several problems with the idea of foreseeability as proximate cause, namely that depending on how one defines the type of harm, one can find any action either foreseeable or not. For example, if the type of harm foreseen is "death", any death will count. But if the type of harm is defined as "being shot in the upper torso by a .38 caliber bullet from a distance of 10 feet", foreseeability is much more difficult to prove. In addition, foreseeability really addresses culpability instead of causation.
This is also known as the "extraordinary in hindsight” rule. See Restatement (Second) of Torts.
Direct Causation Direct causation is a minority test, which addresses only the metaphysical concept of causation. The main thrust of direct causation is that there are no intervening causes between an act and the resulting harm. An intervening cause has several requirements: it must 1) be independent of the original act, 2) be a voluntary human act or an abnormal natural event, and 3) occur in time between the original act and the harm.
Direct causation is the only theory that addresses only causation, and does not take into account the culpability of the original actor.
Risk enhancement/causal link The plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant's action increased the risk that the particular harm suffered by the plaintiff would occur. If the action were repeated, the likelihood of the harm would correspondingly increase.
Harm Within the Risk (HWR) The Harm Within the Risk test determines if the harm was within the class of risks, and if the victim was within the class of persons forseeably harmed. It is the strictest test of causation, made famous by Benjamin Cardozo in the Palsgraf case (see below). The first element of the test, if the harm was an instance of the type of harm that made the actor negligent, is met if the person could be expected to be hurt by the act. A good illustration of this is that a pedestrian is within the class of people risked by driving on the sidewalk, whereas another driver who sees someone driving on the sidewalk and crashes into a telephone pole is not. Justice Benjamin Nathan Cardozo (May 24, 1870–July 9, 1938) was a distinguished American jurist who is remembered not only for his landmark decisions on negligence but also his modesty and philosophy. ...
The second prong of the test is if the type of harm was in the class of expected harms. Giving a loaded gun to a small child gives rise to the expectation that someone will be shot. If the child drops the gun and it breaks someone's foot, the HWR test will fail, as a broken foot was not the type of harm anticipated.
The HWR test is not used much anymore, and when it is used, just looks at the class of people hurt, not at the type of harm. The main issue with this test is that it addresses culpability, not actual causation.
Controversy The doctrine of proximate cause is notoriously confusing. The doctrine is phrased in the language of causation, but in most of the cases in which causation is contested, there is not much real dispute that the defendant but-for caused the plaintiff's injury. The doctrine is actually used by judges to limit the scope of the defendant's liability to a subset of the total class of potential plaintiffs who suffered some harm from the defendant's actions. For an understanding of the broader view of causation which proximate cause circumscribes, see Butterfly effect. Point attractors in 2D phase space. ...
For example, in the two famous Kinsman Transit cases from the 2nd Circuit (exercising admiralty jurisdiction over a New York incident), it was clear that mooring a boat improperly could lead to the risk of a boat drifting away and crashing into another boat, and that both boats could crash into a bridge, which collapsed and blocked the river, and in turn, the wreckage could flood the land adjacent to the river, as well as prevent any traffic from traversing the river until it had been cleared. But under proximate cause, the property owners adjacent to the river could sue (Kinsman I), but not the owners of the boats or the cargoes which could not move until the river was reopened (Kinsman II). Old Admiralty House, Whitehall, London, Thomas Ripley, architect, 1723-26, was not admired by his contemporaries and earned him some scathing couplets from Alexander Pope The Admiralty was historically the authority in the United Kingdom responsible for the command of the Royal Navy. ...
Therefore, in 2001, the American Law Institute proposed in a draft of the Restatement (Third), Torts: Liability for Physical Harm (Basic Principles) that proximate cause should be replaced with scope of liability. 2001: A Space Odyssey. ...
The American Law Institute (ALI) was established in 1923 to promote the clarification and simplification of American common law and its adaptation to changing social needs. ...
See also |
Feeds |
Contact