Also known as: causal relationships between conduct and results · causation · factual causation · proximate cause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A requirement that the defendant's voluntary act be the but-for cause of a prohibited result. The requirement incorporates rules addressing divergence between the result intended or contemplated and the result that actually occurs.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Craig Caldwell and Clifford Cox both fire rifles toward a shared target area during a group hunt. A bullet strikes Corinne Cho, but ballistics cannot identify which rifle fired it. Because both men acted negligently toward Cho and she cannot prove which shot caused her injury, the court shifts the burden to each defendant to show his conduct was not the cause in fact of the harm.
Carlos Castillo stabs Cade Carpenter during a fight. Carpenter survives for fourteen months but eventually dies from complications of the wound. The prosecution cannot establish homicide liability because the death occurred after the one-year-and-one-day period following the injury.
Cody Callahan's excavation work creates unstable soil that later contributes to a landslide damaging Crystal Dynamics' warehouse. The court determines that reasonable jurors could not differ on whether Callahan's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm and therefore resolves the causation question itself rather than submitting it to the jury.
Central Dynamics' CEO kills a former employee who had threatened to expose corporate fraud. The killing occurs during an unrelated robbery and the CEO did not act to prevent the employee from testifying. The forfeiture-by-wrongdoing doctrine does not apply because the prosecution cannot prove the CEO intended to make the witness unavailable for trial.
Copperfield Mining's owner allows his minor son to operate heavy equipment on the job site without training or supervision. The son negligently drives the equipment into a neighboring property and causes damage. The owner is liable because his own negligent entrustment was a proximate cause of the son's tortious conduct.
Citadel Security's physician prescribes a medical device to patient Corinne Cho after receiving the manufacturer's warning. Cho later suffers complications and sues the manufacturer. She cannot establish causation because she offers only generalized evidence of risk awareness rather than proof that a different warning would have changed the physician's prescribing decision.
The prosecution must show that the defendant's voluntary act was the but-for cause of the victim's death and that the actual result was not too remote or accidental from the intended or contemplated result to impose liability.
Supporting sources
Even when the defendant's conduct clearly satisfies but-for causation, homicide liability is unavailable if the victim dies more than one year and one day after the injury.
…one of degree." To the same effect is the concurring opinion of Justice Cardozo in Schechter Poultry : "There is a view of causation that would obliterate the distinction between what is national and what is local in the activities of commerce. Motion at the outer rim is communicated perceptibly, though minutely, to…
…conduct would be especially correlated with violence is that it conveys a particularly odious message; because
…any element of the crime of murder. The State has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of intent and causation. The defendant has the burden of proving the separate issue of extreme emotional disturbance. I also note that the Court's decision is consistent with our decision in Hankerson v. North…
…declined to adopt a per se or "but for" rule that would render inadmissible any evidence that came to light through a chain of causation that began with an illegal arrest. Brown v. Illinois , 422 U. S. 590 (1975); Wong Sun v. United States, supra , at 487-488. We also have held that a witness' testimony may be admitted…
…& Hudson Co. , 213 U. S. 366, 408 (1909)). Section 2119, we held, established three separate offenses. Therefore, the facts—causation
The court decides when the evidence permits only one reasonable conclusion on whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor, whether the harm is capable of apportionment, or the questions of causation and apportionment.
The doctrine requires proof that the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying. Simple causation without that intent does not forfeit confrontation rights.
A parent is liable only when the parent's own negligence, such as negligent supervision or entrustment, is a proximate cause of the child's tortious conduct.
The plaintiff must prove that an adequate warning to the prescribing physician would have altered the physician's decision. Generalized evidence of risk awareness is insufficient.