Proximate Cause: Definition, Examples, and Legal Significance

Accident injuries happen in many forms and degrees of severity. The National Safety Council reported there were 63 million injuries and 227,039 preventable deaths in 2022 alone. In most cases, a result (an accident injury) has a clear, direct cause (the action or lack thereof of an individual or party). However, the causal relationship is not always so straightforward. For example, what if you were injured in a car accident that involved multiple other drivers? By a defective product that went through many steps in the manufacturing process? By a business owner’s failure to upkeep their property?

In each of these situations, the actions of the individual that led to your injury must be reviewed and ruled on in a court of law. If you wish to seek fair compensation after suffering an injury in an accident, it is important to understand the concept of proximate cause and how it relates to your case. Especially in cases where the cause of your injury is unclear or complex, it is crucial to have an experienced legal professional review your claim. 

What Does Proximate Cause Mean?

There are two types of causation in personal injury lawsuits: actual cause and proximate cause. Proximate cause is sometimes referred to as “legal cause” because it deals with the defendant’s degree of liability in causing injury. While “actual cause” is relatively simple to prove (for example, action “A” caused result “B”), proximate cause can be a little more complex. The term “proximate cause” in personal injury cases sometimes applies to an action that sets a chain of events into motion (for example, action “A” results in event “B,” causing outcome “C”).  The “cause” in question can happen at any point in the sequence of events. What is important is that the event caused foreseeable consequences, eventually resulting in an accidental injury that would not have happened otherwise. 

Both actual and proximate cause are used as standards of liability in personal injury cases. If a defendant’s negligence is proven to be the direct or indirect cause of the plaintiff’s injury, they are considered legally responsible. It is important to note, however, that proximate cause does not always indicate liability. For example, if the actual cause of a pedestrian’s injury is that a driver lost control of their vehicle while suffering a heart attack, the driver may not be considered legally liable for the pedestrian’s injuries (even though their loss of control over their vehicle was the proximate cause of the accident). Therefore, the connection between proximate cause and liability must be proven according to tort law.  

Key Elements of Proximate Cause

In order for a defendant’s actions to be considered a “proximate cause” for an injury, there are a few key elements that must be established. 

“But For” Test

The “but for” test seeks to answer the question: would the accident have occurred “but for” the defendant’s negligent actions? To determine if this criterion is met, your injury attorney will seek to prove that the accident or events that resulted in your injury would not have been possible without the defendant’s failure to act within their legal duty of care.  

The Foreseeability Test

The “foreseeability test” determines whether or not the consequences of the defendant’s actions could have been reasonably foreseen. Some actions may have clearer consequences than others, and it can be challenging to determine what the defendant may have been able to “reasonably” foresee. However, it may be the case that the defendant could have reasonably expected that their actions would result in a potential accident. If this is the case, your injury attorney may emphasize the likelihood of foreseeability in court or settlement negotiations.

Directness of the cause and effect relationship

Because proximate cause is less direct than actual cause, there may be significant distance between the action (the defendant’s alleged negligence) and result (accident resulting in injury). Depending on how far apart the action and result are in the sequence of events, it may be difficult to prove that the defendant’s negligence was consequential enough in causing an accident to establish liability. 

Differentiation between proximate cause and actual cause

As discussed above, there are subtle but significant differences between proximate and actual cause. To make this distinction clearer, refer to the following definitions:

• Actual cause: the action directly responsible

• Proximate cause: the action legally responsible

While there may be some overlap between these concepts, they are not the same. An experienced injury attorney can establish both actual and proximate cause by examining the details of the case.

What Is Required Legally To Prove Proximate Cause?

There are certain standards of proof that must be met in order to legally prove proximate cause. Clear and convincing evidence must be provided that the defendant’s negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injuries. To determine liability in a personal injury case, your attorney must prove:

1. The defendant owed you a duty of care.

2. This duty was not fulfilled.

3. This failure was the cause of the accident or injury.

4. The victim of this failure is entitled to financial compensation by law.

Legal Examples of Proximate Cause

There are various examples of proximate cause liability that we can pull from recent injury cases. In both of the following cases, the actions of an individual were found to be the proximate cause of their resulting injuries.

Hain V. Jamison

In Hain V. Jamison, a decedent's estate sued a family farm for fatal injuries sustained from a passing vehicle when a woman got out of her car to move a baby calf who had wandered onto the road. The estate argued that the farm’s negligence in allowing their calf to escape to the road constituted proximate cause (if the calf weren’t on the road, the woman wouldn’t have gotten out of her vehicle and been struck by a passerby). However, it was determined that the woman’s actions, removing herself from the vehicle, had the predictable and foreseeable consequence of placing her life in danger. In this case, the family farm was not considered to be legally responsible for the woman’s death. 

Boyce V. Monongahela

When a truck driver (Mr. Boyce) working for Monongahela Power Company was electrocuted on the job, the courts had to closely examine how this electrocution transpired to determine whether Boyce or Monongahela were liable for the accident. Boyce was electrocuted when, after climbing on top of his truck, he then proceeded to wrap communication lines that were in close proximity to an energized electrical line with shrink wrap. The jury determined that Boyce’s actions, rather than any negligence on the part of his employer, were the proximate cause of his electrocution. It was determined that his intentional actions had foreseeable consequences and were the sole cause of his injuries. 

The Impact of Proximate Cause on Legal Claims

• Effect on the outcome of legal claims and lawsuits

  • Both personal injury and negligence claims seek to hold negligent or reckless individuals responsible by proving their degree of liability. Proximate cause is a key element in determining the presence and/or degree of legal liability. 

• Role in determining liability and compensation

  • Proximate cause’s role in legal claims is especially crucial when the victim is seeking financial compensation. Before any financial compensation can be awarded, it must be determined that the defendant is legally liable (i.e., that their actions were the proximate cause of the injury).

Criticisms and Controversies Regarding Proximate Causes

Because of the complex, and at times, seemingly subjective nature of establishing proximate cause, there are various criticisms and controversies surrounding the issue among legal professionals. The most common criticism of proximate cause regards the subjective nature of “foreseeability” and the difficulty of establishing “directness.” Additionally, some accidents result from multi-cause scenarios, making it especially difficult to determine which chain of the sequence of events can be held liable for resulting injury. Critics may disagree on the degree of liability assigned to each party in these multi-cause scenarios. 

How To Establish Proximate Cause as a Plaintiff

• Steps for plaintiffs to take in establishing proximate cause:

1. Gather as much evidence as possible regarding the circumstances of your injury. Keep records of any doctor’s visits, medical treatments, eyewitness accounts, or financial losses in the aftermath of your injury. 

2. In particularly complex cases, expert testimony may be necessary to determine the proximate cause of an accidental injury. Expert testimony is often provided by individuals such as medical professionals, law enforcement, or safety experts. 

3. The final step to establish proximate cause for your injuries is perhaps the most important: hiring an experienced injury lawyer to represent your case. A quality accident attorney will ensure your best interests are protected as you seek financial compensation for your injuries. 

• Seeking legal assistance

When you are ready to seek compensation for your injuries, it is time to hire representation for your claim. If you are overwhelmed by the process of finding an attorney for your claim, Expertise.com can help. Our free concierge service will connect you with quality personal injury attorneys in your area. 

Proximate Cause FAQs

• What does proximate cause mean in insurance? Is it different from proximate cause in law?
• What is proximate cause in negligence cases? Is proximate cause an element of negligence?
• What is proximate cause in criminal law?
• Can proximate cause and actual cause be the same?
• Can there be more than one proximate cause?