Proximate cause limits liability in tort cases, ensuring defendants are only responsible for reasonably foreseeable harm. It balances accountability with fairness, considering factors like foreseeability and directness of causation to determine if a defendant's actions legally caused the plaintiff's injury.

Courts use tests like the foreseeability test to assess proximate cause, examining whether a reasonable person would have anticipated the harm. They also distinguish between direct and indirect causes, with intervening events potentially breaking the causal chain if unforeseeable or extraordinary.

Proximate Cause (Legal Cause)

Concept of proximate cause

• Legal doctrine limits scope of liability in tort cases defendant's conduct must be proximate cause of plaintiff's injury for liability to attach also known as legal cause
• Prevents unlimited or excessive liability for defendants ensures liability imposed only when defendant's conduct closely connected to plaintiff's harm prevents defendants from being held liable for remote or unforeseeable consequences
• Considers factors such as foreseeability, directness of causation, and intervening events to determine whether defendant's conduct legally caused plaintiff's harm
• Balances need for accountability with fairness and policy considerations limiting liability to reasonably foreseeable consequences of one's actions

Foreseeability test for causation

• Common approach to determining proximate cause asks whether plaintiff's injury reasonably foreseeable consequence of defendant's conduct if injury foreseeable proximate cause established
• Assessed from perspective of reasonable person in defendant's position considers what prudent person would have anticipated under similar circumstances
• Helps limit liability to consequences closely connected to defendant's actions excludes liability for unforeseeable or highly unusual outcomes
• Focuses on whether defendant could or should have anticipated potential harm resulting from their conduct based on ordinary experience and knowledge
• Foreseeability determined at time of defendant's action not with benefit of hindsight unforeseeable intervening events can break causal chain and negate proximate cause

Direct vs indirect causes

• Direct causes lead to plaintiff's injury without intervening events (car accident directly causing injuries) generally considered proximate causes
• Indirect causes contribute to plaintiff's injury but separated by intervening events or factors (negligently started fire spreading due to strong winds) may or may not be proximate causes depending on foreseeability of intervening events
• Intervening causes can break chain of causation and relieve defendant of liability must be unforeseeable or extraordinary to break causal chain foreseeable intervening causes do not break chain of causation
• Superseding causes are intervening events that are so significant they become predominant cause of harm relieving original defendant of liability (thief stealing car left running unattended)

Application of proximate cause

• Scenario 1: A negligently leaves loaded gun in public place B finds gun and accidentally shoots C
  1. A's negligence cause-in-fact of C's injuries (but-for test)
  2. B's actions may be unforeseeable intervening cause breaking chain of causation relieving A of liability
• Scenario 2: A negligently maintains staircase in their building B tenant slips on stairs and injures back
  1. A's negligence cause-in-fact of B's injuries (but-for test)
  2. B's injuries foreseeable consequence of A's negligent maintenance
  3. A likely liable for B's injuries proximate cause established
• Scenario 3: A negligently causes car accident injuring B B contracts infection in hospital and dies
  1. A's negligence cause-in-fact of B's initial injuries (but-for test)
  2. Hospital-acquired infection may be foreseeable consequence of initial injury
  3. A may be liable for B's death proximate cause can be established despite intervening medical complication