AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
n law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened.[1] (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.) The action is a necessary condition, but may not be a sufficient condition, for the resulting injury. A few circumstances exist where the but for test is ineffective (see But-for test). Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you would not have missed the train and would not have been mugged), a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause. Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred. There are several competing theories of proximate cause (see Other factors). For an act to be deemed to cause a harm, both tests must be met; proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.
Sine qua non (/ˌsaɪni kweɪ ˈnɒn, ˌsɪni kwɑː ˈnoʊn/,[1] Latin: [ˈsɪnɛ kʷaː ˈnoːn]) or condicio sine qua non (plural: condicio sine quibus non) is an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. It was originally a Latin legal term for "[a condition] without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which [there is] nothing". "Sine qua non causation" is the formal terminology for "but-for causation".
Foreseeability
The most common test of proximate cause under the American legal system is foreseeability. It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks a heavy object off a shelf behind them, which causes a blunt-force injury.
This is also known as the "extraordinary in hindsight" rule.
Direct causation
Direct causation is a minority test, which addresses only the metaphysical concept of causation.[7] It does not matter how foreseeable the result as long as what the negligent party's physical activity can be tied to what actually happened. The main thrust of direct causation is that there are no intervening causes between an act and the resulting harm. An intervening cause has several requirements: it must 1) be independent of the original act, 2) be a voluntary human act or an abnormal natural event, and 3) occur in time between the original act and the harm.
Direct causation is the only theory that addresses only causation and does not take into account the culpability of the original actor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause
Sine qua non (/ˌsaɪni kweɪ ˈnɒn, ˌsɪni kwɑː ˈnoʊn/,[1] Latin: [ˈsɪnɛ kʷaː ˈnoːn]) or condicio sine qua non (plural: condicio sine quibus non) is an indispensable and essential action, condition, or ingredient. It was originally a Latin legal term for "[a condition] without which it could not be", or "but for..." or "without which [there is] nothing". "Sine qua non causation" is the formal terminology for "but-for causation".
Foreseeability
The most common test of proximate cause under the American legal system is foreseeability. It determines if the harm resulting from an action could reasonably have been predicted. The test is used in most cases only in respect to the type of harm. It is foreseeable, for example, that throwing a baseball at someone could cause them a blunt-force injury. But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks a heavy object off a shelf behind them, which causes a blunt-force injury.
This is also known as the "extraordinary in hindsight" rule.
Direct causation
Direct causation is a minority test, which addresses only the metaphysical concept of causation.[7] It does not matter how foreseeable the result as long as what the negligent party's physical activity can be tied to what actually happened. The main thrust of direct causation is that there are no intervening causes between an act and the resulting harm. An intervening cause has several requirements: it must 1) be independent of the original act, 2) be a voluntary human act or an abnormal natural event, and 3) occur in time between the original act and the harm.
Direct causation is the only theory that addresses only causation and does not take into account the culpability of the original actor.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proximate_cause
