To establish a prima facie case in a negligence action, the plaintiff must show, among other things (actual injury & breach of duty), that the defendant's actions caused the injury in question to a preponderance of the evidence. Causation involves both cause in fact and proximate cause. The plaintiff can establish the cause in fact element by showing that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct. And as for the proximate cause element, the injury must have been a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct. That is, a reasonably prudent person would expect that or a similar outcome as a result of that conduct.
This requirement of foreseeability is a relatively new notion (20th century) in tort law. Before the foreseeability requirement, a defendant could be held liable if she was simply the direct cause of the injury (she started the ball rolling and whatever happened as a result was attributable to her breach of duty).
Another thing to remember is that an injury is not foreseeable if it is the result of an independent intervening factor. For example, say I negligently cause a friend to fall off my roof. If the Doctor Who operates on the friend's wounds finds a tumor and ruptures it by his own negligence, I cannot be held liable for the death of the friend (assuming the friend died of the ruptured tumor). This was not reasonably foreseeable and therefore not a proximate cause of the death. However, some things are always per se foreseeable regardless of the circumstances. For example, injuries that are the result of rescuing someone from the defendant's negligence is never an intervening factor in the eyes of the law.
Hope this helps... I don't know how long ago you asked the question, but I did this to help myself study for my torts exam on Friday!
D. Standard of Care
Foreseeability in negligence refers to whether a reasonable person could have foreseen that their actions (or lack of action) could cause harm to another person. In terms of causation, a plaintiff must show that the harm caused was a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions in order to establish the necessary link between the defendant's conduct and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. If the harm was not foreseeable, it may be difficult to prove that the defendant's actions were the proximate cause of the injury.
What was the proximate solution? Go to you proximate store now!
You must understand proximate cause first to understand "causation in fact". Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury through reasonable forseeability. This is the legal cause of a plaintiff's injury. Withouth this cause there is no lega liability. With Causation In Fact is the "but for" test. With this cause alone does not grant liability. Proximate is the legal cause and CIF is the hunch more or less.
Proximate causes refer to immediate triggers or mechanisms that directly lead to a particular outcome. Ultimate causes, on the other hand, delve deeper into the evolutionary or historical reasons behind why a trait or behavior exists. Ultimate causes are about understanding the broader context and long-term implications, while proximate causes focus more on the immediate factors at play.
Every behavior is due to some kind of external stimulus that triggers the behavior. This behavior emerges due to the fact that it has proven to increase fitness. The evolutionary cause behind the behavior, however, is called the ultimate cause. The proximate cause is what is immediately observed as causing the behavior. For example, birds will reproduce only at a certain time (behavior). This can be attributed to the declining sunlight received by the bird's photoreceptors (proximate cause). Or when movement is detected with the photoreceptors (proximate cause), and the reciprocated behavior in most animals is the flinch reaction (behavior).
false
Principles of Insurance : Proximate Cause The efficient cause which brings about a loss with no other intervening cause which breaks the chain of events. Example:Firemen remove undamaged stock from a burning building to avoid its involvement in the fire. It is stacked in the open yard and subsequently damaged by rain. Was the proximate cause of the damage the fire or the rain ? If the rain damage occurred before the Insured had an opportunity to protect it then the proximate cause of the damage would be the fire and fire is covered under a fire policy. However, if the stock was left unprotected for an unreasonably long period, the rain would be a new and independent cause of damage and damage caused by rain may not be covered under a policy.
Proximate cause or actual cause.
In legal terms, a superseding cause is an event that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the original party of liability, while an intervening cause is an event that occurs after the original act and may or may not affect liability depending on its foreseeability and connection to the original act.
Cause. The relationship between affect and effect is similar to the relationship between influence and cause. Influence has the power to bring about a certain outcome or result, just as cause does.
Proximate cause in the tort of negligence refers to the legal concept that relates the defendant's actions to the plaintiff's injuries. It implies that the defendant's actions were the primary cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff and that this harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's actions. In other words, for the defendant to be held liable, the plaintiff must demonstrate that there was a direct link between the defendant's actions and the harm suffered.