Key Takeaways

  • A proximate cause is the legal concept linking a defendant's conduct to the plaintiff's injury in a foreseeable and direct manner.
  • Courts use tests like the “but for” rule, substantial factor test, and foreseeability to determine proximate cause.
  • Examples help illustrate how courts assess causation, such as the Palsgraf case and car accident chain reactions.
  • Intervening causes and foreseeability limitations can break the causal link and absolve liability.
  • Understanding proximate cause is essential in personal injury and negligence claims.

A proximate cause example in legal terms is something which causes another thing to happen. 

What is Proximate Cause?

Something which is either carelessly or intentionally caused and results in someone's injuries or distress. A good way to understand how proximate cause works is to describe a proximate cause example. Proximate cause is used in civil and criminal cases, and are frequent in personal injury legal cases. 

Determining Proximate Cause Through Different Rules

Certain states take into consideration the “but for” rule for proximate cause. This means understanding if the injury would occur but for the action or lapse of the defendant. When the injury wouldn't have occurred but for the action on the defendant's part, proximate cause is proven.

  • If a drunk driver hits a pedestrian, the accident would not have occurred but for the driver's drunkenness. But if the same driver hits a warehouse with explosives inside, and the explosion causes other drivers to swerve and hit the pedestrian, then drunk driving is not a proximate cause of the injuries.

Other states take into consideration the “substation factor” to determine a proximate cause. A substantial factor is something that essentially contributes to an injury. If an act or omission are a small part of the injury, it will not be considered a proximate cause.

  • If a driver hit a truck loaded with explosives, and the explosives ignite and kill the truck driver, the diverted driving is an important factor that caused the accident to occur. 

Proximate cause can also be determined if a person could have foreseen the destructive costs of his actions and taken action to avert them. Foreseeability is commonly used in tort cases and questions are asked to determine proximate cause including:

  • Could the defendant foresee the type of harm inflicted?
  • Is the manner in which the plaintiff's injury occurred foreseeable?
  • Is the degree of the injury foreseeable?
  • Is the plaintiff among the people who could have foreseen he/she would be injured by the defendant's actions?

Proximate Cause Real Life Example 

Proximate cause was found in the 1927 case of Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad. 

The plaintiff, Mrs. Palsgraf, was waiting for her train at the end of the platform at Long Island Railroad Station. A man ran to the platform of the departing train from the opposite side, and as the train was moving the man jumped on it but lost his balance. 

Employees on the train and platform helped the main get on the train by pushing and pulling him in. The man was carrying a package of fireworks which fell out of his arms and exploded onto the ground. The loud noise startled the people on the platform including Mrs. Palsfraf, who fell over the set of scales, injuring herself. 

She sued the railroad for being negligent by not seeing the man had fireworks. The court ruled that there was no proximate cause of the workers' actions and in favor of the railroad. The workers could not have foreseen that by helping the defendant, there would be an injury to Mrs. Palsgraf.

More Examples of Proximate Cause in Action

To better understand the legal standard, here is another common example of proximate cause:

  • A driver runs a red light and hits another vehicle. The struck vehicle crashes into a pedestrian. The initial driver's action—running the red light—is the proximate cause of the pedestrian's injury because it set off a direct and foreseeable chain of events.

Another helpful example involves medical negligence:

  • A patient undergoes surgery, and the doctor forgets a surgical tool inside the patient’s body. The resulting infection leads to further injury. The doctor’s act is the proximate cause of harm, as the injury is a foreseeable outcome of the negligent act.

In both cases, courts can easily trace a direct and foreseeable link between the defendant's conduct and the injury that occurred.

The Harm Within the Risk Rule

Mrs. Palsgraf's case can also be used as a proximate cause example for the “harm within the risk” criteria. Harm within the risk considers whether other people could have been injured by the defendant's actions. If it is determined this is the case, then is Mrs. Palsgraf part of this group of people?

Since she was a pedestrian on the platform, then this is the case. Even though the railroad workers could not have known she would be harmed by them helping the defendant, she was in the group of people put at risk. This test is not commonly used today, as it doesn't take into considerations causation.

  • If for example, the workers knowingly threw an unticketed passenger off the train and tossed his luggage onto the platform, then proximate cause exists because they could foresee the possibility of someone getting injured with their actions.
  • Another possibility to consider is if another passenger was trying to get on the train when this incident occurred. Distraction causes him to slip off the steps and break his leg. On this example, the railroad workers cannot be held liable because the harm within the risk rule allows causation to be made in a straight format. 

Intervening Causes and Limitations on Proximate Cause

Not every act that precedes an injury qualifies as a proximate cause. Sometimes, intervening events can break the chain of causation. These are referred to as superseding causes.

An example would be:

  • A car accident caused by a speeding driver forces another car off the road. While waiting for help, the stranded driver is struck by lightning. Although the initial driver caused the accident, the lightning strike is a superseding, unforeseeable event that interrupts the chain of proximate causation.

Courts also consider whether a plaintiff’s injuries were within the scope of risk created by the defendant’s conduct. If the outcome is too remote or unexpected, proximate cause may not be established.

Factors that courts may analyze include:

  • Whether the intervening event was foreseeable.
  • Whether the defendant’s action was a substantial factor in the injury.
  • Whether any negligence occurred after the defendant’s act that contributed more directly to the harm.

Understanding these limitations is essential for determining legal liability in complex personal injury claims.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is the difference between proximate cause and actual cause? Actual cause refers to the direct, factual connection between an act and injury ("but for" the act, the harm wouldn't have occurred). Proximate cause limits liability to consequences that are reasonably foreseeable.

2. Can there be more than one proximate cause? Yes. Multiple parties can share liability if their actions collectively contribute to the harm and each was a substantial factor in causing the injury.

3. Is foreseeability always required to prove proximate cause? Foreseeability is a common element in most jurisdictions, especially in tort law. If the type of harm was not reasonably predictable, proximate cause might not be found.

4. What is an intervening cause in a legal case? An intervening cause is a separate act that occurs after the defendant’s conduct and contributes to the injury. If it’s unforeseeable, it may break the chain of causation.

5. How does the Palsgraf case affect proximate cause law? It established that foreseeability of the plaintiff’s injury is critical in determining whether the defendant owed a duty, reinforcing the principle that not all consequences are legally attributable to an initial act.

If you need help with a proximate cause matter, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.