Also known as: proximate causes · proximate causation · legal cause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The causal sequence by which an actor's tortious conduct results in an invasion of a legally protected interest of another. The law holds the actor responsible for the resulting harm unless a defense to liability applies.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Preston Pratt operated a delivery van with a known brake defect. While descending a steep grade, the brakes failed and the van struck Patricia Patel's car. Preston's failure to repair the brakes before operating the vehicle subjected him to liability for the injuries because his conduct was the legal cause of the harm and no defense applied.
Pablo Perez allowed his minor son to drive the family car despite knowing the boy had been cited for reckless driving. The son later caused an accident injuring Parker Phillips. Pablo's own negligent entrustment supplied the proximate cause linking his conduct to the harm rather than mere parental status.
Penelope Price left an open trench in a public walkway without barriers or warnings. A pedestrian fell and sustained fractures. The sequence from Penelope's omission through the fall established that the law would hold her responsible for the injuries absent any applicable defense.
Phuong Pham, a warehouse supervisor, directed employees to stack crates without securing straps. A stack collapsed and crushed equipment belonging to Paragon Construction. The inquiry focused on whether Phuong's conduct as the actor was the legal cause of the property damage.
Premier Manufacturing installed a faulty valve on a pressure tank. The valve ruptured during normal use and sprayed hot liquid onto a worker. The jury was required to decide whether the installation was a legal cause of the worker's burns before assessing any compensation.
Peak Performance security guards blocked all exits from a loading dock after detaining a delivery driver. The driver suffered heat exhaustion while confined. The guards' intentional acts remained the legal cause of the injuries even though the harm occurred indirectly through prolonged exposure.
A plaintiff must show that the defendant's tortious conduct produced a causal sequence resulting in harm to a legally protected interest. The law then holds the defendant responsible unless a defense applies. This determination focuses on whether the sequence justifies imposing liability rather than on factual occurrence alone.
Supporting sources
Cause in fact asks whether the harm would have occurred but for the defendant's conduct. Proximate cause asks whether the law should hold the defendant responsible for that harm given the full causal sequence. Both elements must be satisfied before liability attaches.
…corporation, in the federal court for the southern district of that State. The issues were whether negligence of defendant was a proximate cause of his injuries and whether negligence of plaintiff contributed. He claimed that, by hauling the car with the open door, defendant violated a duty to him. The defendant insisted that it…
…14, § 426, Alabama Code 1940 which so far as pertinent reads as follows: “Trespass after warning. — Any person who, without legal cause or good excuse, enters into the dwelling house or on the premises of another, after having been warned, within six months preceding, not to do so; or any person, who, having entered into…
…(3) that the conduct caused the plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress; and (4) that the defendant’s conduct was the proximate cause
…resort to a court of equity in a case like this is that the remedy which the law gives is inadequate. If the plaintiff has no legal cause
…formerly equitable action is triable to a jury simply because it is brought on behalf of a class, but only that a historically legal cause
Supporting sources
An intervening act relieves liability only when it qualifies as a superseding cause that breaks the chain of legal causation. If the intervening act was a normal incident of the risk created by the defendant's negligence, the original conduct remains a legal cause of the harm.
Supporting sources
Yes. An actor whose conduct creates the need for rescue remains liable for additional bodily harm that results from normal efforts by third persons to render aid. This rule applies even when the rescue efforts themselves are performed negligently.
Supporting sources
Foreseeability limits liability to harms that result from the risks that made the actor's conduct tortious. If the defendant should have anticipated the particular risk at the time of acting and negligently failed to avert it, liability follows when that risk causes the plaintiff's harm.
Supporting sources