Also known as: causes in fact · cause-in-fact · factual cause · but-for cause · factual causation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A causal connection between conduct and resulting harm established when the harm would not have occurred but for the conduct or when the conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Clifford Cox was struck by a single bullet while hiking. Two hunters, each firing negligently in his direction, could not be distinguished as the source. Because the plaintiff could not identify which shot caused the wound, the court shifted the burden to each hunter to prove his shot was not the cause in fact of the injury. Neither could do so, so both faced liability for the full harm.
Cecilia Cabrera was injured when a firearm discharged during a confrontation. The possessor argued his mere ownership played no role in the discharge. Evidence showed the weapon would not have been present and fired but for the possession, satisfying cause in fact and allowing the claim to proceed on that element.
Claire Campbell was passed over for partnership. Evidence showed both gender stereotypes and legitimate performance concerns influenced the decision. Because the improper motive was a substantial factor in the denial, cause in fact was established even though other factors also contributed.
Charles Cunningham's apartment was searched after officers failed to wait the required period after knocking. The evidence recovered would not have been found in that location but for the premature entry, establishing cause in fact between the violation and the seizure of the items.
Caleb Chang suffered hand injuries while using a pneumatic tool that vibrated excessively. The design defect was a substantial factor in the nerve damage because the injury would not have occurred to the same degree with a properly functioning tool, satisfying cause in fact.
Christine Castro was fired after her employer learned of her sexual orientation. The decision would not have been made but for that knowledge, establishing cause in fact between the protected characteristic and the adverse employment action.
Cause in fact asks whether the harm would not have occurred but for the conduct or whether the conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm. Proximate cause then asks whether policy considerations justify holding the defendant liable for that harm.
When two or more defendants are negligent and only one caused the harm but identification is impossible, the burden shifts to each defendant to prove its conduct was not the cause in fact of the injury.
No. Conduct can also satisfy cause in fact if it was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm, even if other forces also contributed.
…112, at 6–8 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (table decision) (holding that the State must show that the discriminatory motive was the cause in fact of the offense to establish a hate crime under Iowa law), aff’d in relevant part, 791 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 2010). The government separately points to a case involving Section 1 of the Hate…