CAUSE
Each separate antecedent of an event. Something
that precedes and brings about an effect or a
result. A reason for an action or condition. A
ground of a legal action. An agent that brings
something about. That which in some manner is
accountable for a condition that brings about an
effect or that produces a cause for the resultant
action or state.
A suit, litigation, or action. Any question, civil
or criminal, litigated or contested before a court of
justice.
Cause and Causality in American Law
If an individual is fired from a job at the
bank for EMBEZZLEMENT, he or she is fired for
cause—as distinguished from decisions or
actions considered to be ARBITRARY or capri-
cious.
In CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PROBABLE CAUSE
is the reasonable basis for the belief that some-
one has committed a particular crime. Before
someone may be arrested or searched by a police
officer without a warrant, probable cause must
exist. This requirement is imposed to protect
people from unreasonable or unrestricted inva-
sions or intrusions by the government.
In the law of TORTS, the concept of causality
is essential to a person’s ability to successfully
bring an action for injury against another per-
son. The injured party must establish that the
other person brought about the alleged harm. A
defendant’s liability is contingent upon the con-
nection between his or her conduct and the
injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove
that his or her injury would not have occurred
but for the defendant’s NEGLIGENCE or inten-
tional conduct.
Actual, Concurrent, and Intervening Cause
The actual cause is the event directly respon-
sible for an injury. If one person shoves another,
thereby knocking the other person out an open
window and he or she breaks a leg as a result of
the fall, the shove is the actual cause of the
injury. The immediate cause of the injury in this
case would be the fall, since it is the cause that
came right before the injury, with no intermedi-
ate causes. In some cases the actual cause and
the immediate cause of an injury may be the
same.
Concurrent causes are events occurring
simultaneously to produce a given result. They
are contemporaneous, but either event alone
would bring about the effect that occurs. If one
person stabs another person who is simultane-
ously being shot by a third person, either act
alone could cause the person’s injury.
An INTERVENING CAUSE is one that inter-
rupts the normal flow of events between the
wrong and the injury. It comes between an
expected sequence of occurrences to produce an
unanticipated result. If someone driving under
the influence of alcohol grazes a telephone pole
that is rotted and thus knocks it down, the con-
dition of the pole would be the intervening
cause of its collapse. This is important in deter-
mining the liability of the intoxicated driver. If
the telephone company knew or should have
known about the unsafe condition of the pole
and negligently failed to replace it, the telephone
company would be responsible for the harm
caused by the falling pole. Depending upon how
hard the driver hit the pole, the driver may be
held contributorily negligent, or partially liable,
for the accident that took place.
An intervening efficient cause is one that
totally supersedes the original wrongful act or
omission. For example, an intoxicated cabdriver
transports a person in a cab with faulty brakes.
An accident occurs,which is a direct result of the
intoxication rather than the faulty brakes. The
injury resulting to the passenger is attributable
to the driver’s condition. The intervening effi-
cient cause thereby broke the causal connection
between the original wrong of the faulty brakes
and the injury.
Proximate, Unforeseeable, and Remote Cause
The proximate cause of an injury is the act
or omission of an act without which the harm
would not have occurred. This is a concept in
the law of torts and involves the question of
whether a defendant’s conduct is so significant
as to make him or her liable for a resulting
injury. For example, a person throws a lighted
match into a wastepaper basket that starts a fire
that burns down a building. The wind carries
the flames to the building next door. The act of
throwing the match would be the proximate
cause of the fire and the resulting damage; how-
ever, the person may not be held fully liable for
all resulting consequences.
An unforeseeable cause is one that unexpect-
edly and unpredictably results from the proxi-
mate cause. The degree of injury sustained is
unanticipated or far removed from the negligent
or intentional conduct that took place. For
example, if a customer in a supermarket irritates
a clerk and the clerk pushes the customer out of
the way, which results in prolonged bleeding
because the person is a hemophiliac, the bleed-
ing is an unforeseeable consequence of the
clerk’s action. Even if the clerk intentionally
pushed the customer, the resulting injury is
clearly far removed from the conduct.
A remote cause is one that is removed or sep-
arate from the proximate cause of an injury. If
the injuries suffered by a person admitted to a
hospital after being hit by a truck are aggravated
by MALPRACTICE, the malpractice is a remote
cause of injury to that person. The fact that the
cause of an injury is remote does not relieve a
defendant of liability for the act or omission, but
there may be an APPORTIONMENT of liability
between the defendants.
CROSS-REFERENCES
Action; Arbitrary; Arrest; “But For” Rule; Criminal Procedure; Probable Cause; Search and Seizure; Tort Law; Warrant.
