Legal causation: proximate cause and remoteness in tort law
Image Source - https://shorturl.at/9AnpY

This article is written by Sakshi Agarwal pursuing Diploma in Legal English Communication – oratory, writing, listening and accuracy from LawSikho.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Tort Law can be said to connect the defendant’s actions to the harm a plaintiff is experiencing. This connection must be created so that the damages can be attributable to the defendant as a matter of law. This post will explore the idea of causation, with an emphasis on two important concepts, remote cause and close cause.  Close cause determines how much responsibility a defendant has for the harm, based on how likely it was to be caused. Remote cause determines if the harm is too remote from the defendant’s actions to be held responsible. 

These rules provide structure for courts to ensure that defendants are not responsible for every little consequence of their actions, particularly those that were not anticipated. In this post, we discuss the fundamentals of legal cause, distinguishing between factual cause (what happened) and legal cause (which is when an act is legally “blameable” for harm).  We examine the idea of close cause and note how predictability tests (etc.) limit responsibility. We discuss how judges assess close cause in determining the degree of liability.  We also compare civil law and common law issues, and note their significance in contemporary legal problems regarding environmental, medical negligence and issues presented or created by AI and automation, while offering key areas of consideration and issues to deepen our understanding of legal cause.

Download Now

Definition and importance of causation in law

Causation in tort is the link between the damage suffered by the plaintiff and the defendant’s actions, which caused that harm. While showing that the defendant’s actions caused the harm is part of the answer, the defendant’s actions also need to be shown to be both the actual cause and the legal cause of the damage. This rule is intended to fairly share the responsibility and not create endless liability for unforeseen consequences.

Differentiation between factual causation and legal causation

Tort law’s study of causes is split into two parts.:

Factual causation (cause-in-fact) 

This feature examines whether the defendant’s act caused the damage. However, both testing and the crucial factor are part of standard tests.

Legal causation (proximate cause) 

To determine if someone is fully responsible for the harm, we ask if the harm was expected from their conduct. That is, for the defendant not to be responsible for unusual damage.

Significance of proximate cause and remoteness in determining liability

Proximate cause and remoteness limit responsibility. Both emphasise that someone cannot be blamed for damage that is unusually remote or not expected as a result of their actions.

Understanding legal causation

Factual causation (Cause-in-Fact)

The first step in determining liability is to consider two factor cause of the two-factor cause of the plaintiff’s suffering

“But for” test

The “but for” test asks whether the defendant’s conduct caused the harm, or would the harm have occurred ‘but for’ the defendant’s action? Though the test is straightforward, the “but for” test may not be useful when there are multiple causes or complicated circumstances.

Substantial factor test

In situations with many potential causes, the use of the substantial factor theory occurs when the “but for” test is unsuitable. The substantial factor theory considers whether the defendant’s conduct was a factor in creating the harm, even without being the dominant factor

Case example: Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital

A historical case, Barnett v. Chelsea & Kensington Hospital(1969), illustrates how these tests work. In this example, while there was a lag in hospital treatment, the court ruled the defendant’s conduct did not cause the death of the patient, because he would have died of his illness even if he had been treated at the hospital. This example demonstrates that we must show a clear cause first before considering legal responsibility.

Legal causation (proximate cause)

Once the factual cause has been established, we then look for the legal cause. This means determining if the damages were something that was foreseeable.

Concept and necessity of limiting liability

The idea of legal cause is meant to contain the amount of liability that someone has for the far-reaching consequences of their conduct. It ensures that people are not held liable for damage that is both remote and separate from the conduct that caused it.

Role of foreseeability

Being able to foresee damage is very important in the analysis of legal cause. A person is only liable when the type of damage is something that any reasonable person would have foreseen at the time of their careless act. This type of test causes to focus the liability for the result that was closely related to the conduct of the person.

Importance of tort and negligence claims

If injuries or damage occur due to negligence, you must establish what caused the injury directly. The court wants to know whether the things that took place before the injury are closely connected and if the damage was certainly something that the defendant’s actions might have caused. Even if it can be established that the defendant was involved in causing the damage, the injury will likely fail for lack of a connection.

Proximate cause: the foreseeability test

Definition and purpose

The term proximate cause simply means that a person is only liable for damage that is closely related to that person’s actions. The rationale is to ensure fairness and justice, so the defendant is only liable for outcomes that could reasonably have been expected under the circumstances.

Key legal tests for proximate cause

Two main tests help determine the proximate cause:

Foreseeability test

Originating from cases such as Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1926), under the predictability foreground, the damage must be an expected consequence of the defendant’s act. One example is a case from the New York Court of Appeals, which determined that a railroad could not be liable for an injury to a bystander because the damage was not something that could have been anticipated from the railroad employee’s conduct. In the case of Palsgraf, the court determined that the defendant could not be liable because the plaintiff’s injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the original negligent act.

Directness test

On the other hand, the Directness test, as seen in cases such as Re Polemis & Furness, Why & Co Ltd.(1921), this writing addresses the potential subsequent injuries that the act or acts of the defendant can directly cause. It looks to ascertain if the injury was sustained blatantly by the defendant’s negligence without any intervening variables. With Re Polemis & Furness, Why & Co Ltd (1921) came a rule that determines a defendant is liable for all direct consequences that flow from their negligent actions, no matter how unexpected the end results were. In this court case, it was determined that if the negligence of the pin produces damage directly, it doesn’t matter if the kind of damage or the extent of damage was contemplated; the loss was still the defendant’s liability.

“Zone of danger” concept

The concept of “Zone of Danger” is a helpful way to hone in on who can cause damage. It considers the person’s location and situation to find if the injured party was in a situation where they were at immediate risk from the defendant’s action. The rule clarifies that only the people at actual risk may impute liability to the defendant. For instance, if a person suffered narrowly in the way of debris from a truck acting carelessly, they may have a claim for emotional distress, and be in the zone of danger in a negligence action claim. Whereas, in that same situation, the person is safe from the hazardous action so as not to be in the zone of danger.

Intervening and superseding causes

The chain of cause and effect can be broken by events that occur after the defendant’s action. These events can serve to lessen or eliminate the causal connection between the defendant’s act and the result. The events that occur post-defendant can be separated into two categories: Independent intervening acts: Events that occur beside the defendant’s actions, which may absolve the defendant from liability for damages in an unexpected manner. Dependent intervening acts: Events which are reasonably proximate to the act and fail to break the chain of cause and effect.

Case example: McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts

The case of McKew v. Holland & Hannen & Cubitts (1969) is an example of how these events can modify responsibility, a proceeding where the later action broke the chain of cause and effect and relieved the defendant of blame. In this case, the injured person elected to take a steep staircase without assistance, even when he acknowledged that his injured leg could give way. The choice he made was unreasonable, which became the breaking cause-and-effect chain. If the defendant’s employee had no responsibility for the complainant’s broken ankle from the first fall, the complainant’s second injury was seen as a new event that broke the cause-and-effect chain. This alludes to the court’s ability to deal with how foreseeable or clear these later events are.

Policy considerations in the proximate cause

In addition to legal tests, the main cause is meant to look at significant policy considerations. Courts would appreciate the need to assist injured victims and the policy implications of putting too much responsibility on the defendants. The law will hold the defendants responsible, using a test that checks the claim against what is foreseeable, so that responsibility remains reasonable and correlates with moral guilt.

Remoteness of damage

Concept of remoteness in legal causation

Remoteness refers to the physical distance between the defendant’s action and the damage to establish their legal responsibility. Just because the damage was caused by something clear, it can still be too remote if the damage was not reasonably predictable. Courts assess remoteness by checking whether the type of damage or extent of the damage was a predictable result of the defendant’s actions.

How courts determine the extent of liability

Courts will also look at the facts to assess the relevant circumstances before deciding on an appropriate level of responsibility.

Key tests for remoteness

There are two primary tests to determine if further is needed:

The reasonable foreseeability test

Derived from The Wagon Mound (No.1) (1961), as far as damage is concerned, the first test establishes whether the type of damage was foreseeable. If the damage is too far removed, the defendant cannot be held responsible, irrespective of the defendant’s actions leading to it.

The “eggshell skull” rule

On the other hand, the “Eggshell Skull” rule, illustrated in Smith v. Leech Brain & Co. Ltd (1962). The second test provides that the defendant must deal with the victim as he is. Even if the victim was not supposed to be injured, the defendant is liable for all of the damage sustained.

Distinguishing remoteness from proximate cause

The theories of proximate cause and remoteness also consider foreseeability (anticipation), but occur at different points within the examination of actions. Combined, they ensure that people are not held responsible for very disconnected consequences of their actions.

Cases illustrating the difference

Many court cases show how judges have made the distinction between proximate cause and remoteness. Perhaps the most famous case from a tort law perspective is Palsgraf, which essentially established that people are only liable for harms they would reasonably have believed to have occurred, thus giving us a definition of proximate cause. The Wagon Mound (No. 1) was an important case for recognising that even if one establishes the chain of causation linking an act and a result, a person is not liable for damages that are too remote or unexpected. 

Re Polemis gives us some historical context and shows how legal thinking has shifted over time from a view that people should be held liable for all results that are directly caused by their actions, to a view that limits liability to responsible foreseeable loss. Each of these cases expresses to some degree or another how courts have approached the idea of legal cause for tort purposes, striking a balance between paying victims while trying to vest some reasonable limit on the defendant’s liability to harms that should be expected by persons in reasonable circumstances. All of this serves to process claims by victims to compensate them, all the while making sure that defendants are not unduly burdened.

Comparative analysis: common law vs. civil law approaches

Common law perspective

In common law countries such as the UK, USA, and India, courts will examine previous decisions to understand causes of action. The important cases in each of these countries help to define what constitutes a cause through “but-for” and substantial-factor testing. These principles are inscribed into limits about what will be entertained by the court when looking at what one should have expected to occur. For example, in the UK, proximate cause is created through several decisions, as well as a case from the US, which set a precedent that you must be able to predict a loss must be predictable to impose responsibility. Notably, while the US has very similar tests, courts can sometimes get caught up in the way they consider cause with what they regard as being relevant to causation.

Civil law perspective

In contrast, the courts in India have embraced the British principles, but have altered them to suit their unique social and legal circumstances. Notably, in civil law systems, which are present in various European countries, these countries have a lot more structure for causes. For example, most often, if not always, legal causes will be prescribed in written text and mainly deal with prescribed rules rather than cases. This leads to: A far more reliable way of determining rules relating to answers. Different results on how predictable distance is, with civil law being much more prescriptive in how it approaches limits.

Differences in judicial approach

Whether someone is liable for harm is affected by case law and court decisions in common law countries, like the Wagon Mound decision by the House of Lords, which states people are only liable for foreseeable harm. In civil law countries, like France, there are codified laws; for example, Article 1242 of the French Civil Code was applicable in a case in 2000 against a doctor who failed to diagnose rubella in an unborn baby, explaining who may be liable for harm.

Application in contemporary legal issues

Causation in medical negligence cases

Medical negligence cases are often among the most difficult to prove cause and effect. Often, the courts need to have expert witnesses to clarify the cause by matching the medical facts to the legal rules. For example, when a patient has a prolonged infection, occurring years following surgery, and the courts need to ascertain whether the infection was due to the surgeon’s negligence or caused through other factors, such as the patient’s health and care (hospitalization, other treatments etc.) by utilization of expert medical witnesses. In delayed diagnosis cases, the judges need to assess whether the delay considered the illness would have progressed to worse than it would have without the delay, and this would require the presentation of expert evidence in great detail.

Causation in environmental and corporate liability

In environmental and corporate responsibility cases, it becomes increasingly difficult to understand cause and effect, especially when the cases include many links in the chain of events, multiple people and unclear damages. An example would include a plant discharging chemical solvents into a river, which filters into the soil, mixes with water runoff from farms and waste from the city, and the drinking water is subsequently polluted miles away! Over time, multiple factories have been discharging pollution into the environment, which can impact ecosystems and affect public health, which compounds issues in areas of proximity (often road proximity).

Challenges posed by AI and automation in determining legal causation

As technology changes, new problems come up when applying old rules about cause and effect to modern issues like AI and automation. Some of these problems are:

  • Decision-making algorithmic: Figuring out who is responsible when an automated system causes harm is tricky. Courts may need to change current laws to deal with the issues of how machines learn and predict outcomes.
  • Intervening causes: With automated systems, many layers of software and hardware interact. It can be hard to tell which part caused the harm and whether its actions were expected.
  • Political considerations: As technology progresses, people are debating whether current laws about cause and effect are enough. Lawmakers and courts may need to rethink these rules to better handle AI and automation.

Conclusion

The rules about direct cause and remoteness are important for fairly applying laws about offences. They make sure that people are only responsible for harm that is directly caused by their actions. This blog looked at how factual and legal causes interact, discussed important cases that shaped these rules, and pointed out differences between common law and civil law systems.

In criminal law, to determine if someone’s actions caused harm, we check if their conduct was necessary for the damage, usually using tests like “but-for” and substantial factor tests. The rule of remoteness limits responsibility by excluding damage that is too indirect or unpredictable, using forecasting and the Eggshell Skull rule. Common law systems rely on past cases and judges’ decisions to set these limits, while civil law systems use written laws and set guidelines. Current issues, such as medical negligence and environmental damage caused by AI decisions, challenge traditional cause and effect rules, which often involve complicated chains of events and different people.

Applying cause and remoteness can be hard because human actions and outside events can be unpredictable. New situations, like corporate pollution or self-driving cars, make it more complicated to analyse what is predictable. In the future, laws should change to clearly define cause and remoteness, use knowledge from different fields to assess causes in complex cases, and possibly create new laws for emerging risks, like AI-related harm and global environmental issues.

Frequently asked questions (FAQs)

How does proximate cause limit liability in tort Cases?

The rule of proximate cause limits responsibility by ensuring that the damage is a predictable result of someone’s actions. This stops people from being held responsible for harm that is too distant or indirectly related to what they did.

How is the remoteness of damage determined?

Remoteness is checked by looking at whether the damage was a predictable outcome of the person’s actions. Courts use tests like reasonable predictability and consider principles like the “Eggshell Skull” rule to see if the damage is too remote for responsibility to apply.

How do courts handle legal causation in environmental cases?

In environmental cases, courts carefully examine whether environmental harm was a direct and predictable result of someone’s actions. This usually involves a detailed look at many factors, including the influence of other causes and political issues, to see if the chain of cause remains unbroken.

References

Serato DJ Crack 2025Serato DJ PRO Crack

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here