Also known as: proximate cause · legal cause
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A causal connection between an actor's tortious conduct and harm to another that the law deems sufficient to impose liability on the actor. The connection exists when the actor's conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about the harm and no superseding cause or defense severs responsibility.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Pilar Pena left a loose handrail unrepaired in her apartment building despite repeated tenant complaints. When tenant Piper Patel grabbed the rail during a power outage and fell, the rail's detachment directly contributed to her broken wrist. A jury could find that Pena's failure to repair satisfied the requirements for legal cause because the defect operated as the precise mechanism producing the injury.
Penelope Price allowed her minor son to drive a car with known defective brakes. The son struck Portia Price's vehicle at an intersection. Because the mother's negligent entrustment was a proximate cause of the collision, she faces direct liability separate from any vicarious claim.
Patricia Patel operated an open-air sandblasting yard across from Phuong Pham's home. Metallic dust from the yard coated Pham's property and disrupted her sleep. The direct travel of the dust across the inlet established that Patel's operations were the legal cause of the invasion of Pham's use and enjoyment of land.
Progressive Healthcare's maintenance staff failed to secure an emergency exit. An intruder entered and robbed guests. The staff's affirmative decision to prop the door open supplied the legal cause of the guests' injuries because the unsecured access directly enabled the harm.
Prism Analytics left a known gas leak unrepaired beneath a city block. During a festival an illegal grill hookup ignited the gas and injured a bystander. The company's delay remained a legal cause of the explosion even though the hookup was an intervening act.
Phoenix Technologies locked a storage room door intending to detain a suspected thief. The lock directly prevented the individual from leaving for several hours. The intentional act qualified as the legal cause of confinement regardless of whether the restraint was achieved directly or through an indirect mechanism.
The plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm and that no superseding cause or defense cuts off liability. Multiple Restatement provisions require the causal sequence to be one for which the law holds the actor responsible.
Supporting sources
No. An intervening act does not sever legal cause when the act is a normal incident of the risk created by the defendant's negligence or when the harm remains within the scope of the original risk. Courts examine whether the intervening conduct was foreseeable given the circumstances.
…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
…However, the jury also found that defendant had breached its implied warranty of merchantability and that the breach was the proximate cause
Supporting sources
The substantial factor test refines the legal cause inquiry by asking whether the defendant's conduct contributed to the harm in a meaningful way rather than in a slight or tangential manner. Conduct that meets this test satisfies the legal cause requirement even when other forces also contribute.
Supporting sources
Yes. When each force operating alone is sufficient to produce the harm, the negligent actor's conduct may still be found a legal cause because the rule permits liability when both forces are independently adequate.
Supporting sources
A buyer may recover for personal injury or property damage only if those losses proximately resulted from the breach. The defect must be a substantial factor in the harm for the consequential damages to be recoverable.
Supporting sources