What Is the Difference Between Actual and Proximate Cause?

When filing a personal injury claim, proving causation is one of the most critical steps. To hold a liable party responsible for an accident, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant’s actions directly led to the victim’s injuries. However, causation is more complex than simply identifying who caused the accident. Courts use two legal concepts – actual cause and proximate cause – to determine whether a defendant should be held legally responsible.

Understanding the difference between actual cause and proximate cause is essential in proving liability in a personal injury case. Additionally, the foreseeability test plays a major role in determining proximate causation, further influencing whether a defendant can be held liable.

What Is Actual Cause?

Defining Actual Cause (Cause in Fact)

Actual cause, also known as “cause in fact,” refers to the direct reason an injury occurs. It answers the “but for” test – would the plaintiff’s injuries have happened but for the defendant’s negligent actions? If the answer is no, then the defendant’s conduct is considered the actual cause of the injury.

For example, if a drunk driver runs a red light and crashes into another car, their reckless driving is the actual cause of the cause of the accident. Without their negligence, the accident would not have happened.

Proving Actual Cause in a Personal Injury Case

To establish actual cause, plaintiffs must provide strong evidence, such as:

• Accident reports

• Witness testimony

• Medical records

• Video surveillance

However, actual cause alone does not always make a defendant legally responsible. Courts must also consider proximate cause to determine if the defendant’s negligent action led to a foreseeable result.

What Is Proximate Cause?

Proximate Cause as Legal Cause

While actual cause identifies what physically led to an accident, proximate cause determines legal liability. Courts ask whether the defendant’s actions led to a reasonably foreseeable injury.

For example, if a parked car has defective brakes and starts rolling downhill, hitting a pedestrian, the proximate cause may be traced back to negligent maintenance by the owner or a mechanical defect. If a repair shop improperly serviced the brakes, it could be held legally responsible under proximate cause.

The Role of Foreseeability in Determining Proximate Cause

A key factor in proximate causation is foreseeability. Courts use the foreseeability test to determine whether a defendant should have reasonably predicted that their negligence could lead to harm.

For instance, if a store owner fails to clean up a spill and a customer slips, the injury was foreseeable. However, if an earthquake occurs at the same moment, causing the customer to fall, the store owner would not be liable because the earthquake was not foreseeable.

The “But For” and “Substantial Factor” Tests in Personal Injury Cases

The “But For” Test

Many courts use the “but for” test to determine cause in personal injury cases. This test asks:

• Would the injury have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent action?

• If the answer is no, the defendant is legally responsible.

For example, if a drunk driver crashes into another vehicle, causing serious injuries, the accident would not have happened if the driver had been sober. Therefore, their negligence is both the actual and proximate cause of the victim’s injuries.

The Substantial Factor Test

Some courts use the substantial factor test instead. This test asks whether the defendant’s actions played a significant role in causing injury. If the defendant’s negligence was only a minor influence, they may not be held liable.

For instance, if two drivers crash into the same car simultaneously, both may be substantial factors in the victim’s injuries. In such cases, courts may hold multiple parties liable under proximate causation.

Real-World Examples of Actual vs Proximate Cause

To clarify these legal concepts, consider the following examples:

1. Car Accident Example

   • A driver runs a red light and hits another vehicle. The actual cause is the failure to stop.

   • If the victim suffers severe injuries because the airbag failed to deploy, the proximate cause could be traced to the defective airbag manufacturer.

2. Slip and Fall Example

   • A store fails to put up a wet floor sign, causing a customer to slip. The actual cause is the wet floor.

   • If the fall aggravates a pre-existing condition, the defendant may argue that the pre-existing condition was the proximate cause, limiting liability.

How a Personal Injury Lawyer Can Help Establish Causation

Proving actual and proximate cause can be complex, especially when multiple factors contribute to an injury. A personal injury lawyer plays a crucial role in:

• Investigating evidence to determine the cause of an injury

• Applying the foreseeability test to establish proximate causation

• Proving liability using accident reports, witness statements, and expert testimony

• Negotiating with insurance companies to secure fair compensation

Without proper legal representation, defendants and insurance companies may try to shift blame, arguing that another factor – not their negligence – was the cause of the accident. Working with an Omaha personal injury attorney ensures that the right parties are held liable.

Frequently Asked Questions