What Is the Chain of Causation in a Legal Claim?

In a negligence claim, proving that a defendant acted carelessly is only one part of the case. The injured party must also show that the defendant’s actions directly led to the harm suffered. Without a clear connection between the conduct and the injury, establishing legal liability can be difficult.

This connection is known as the chain of causation, a legal concept that links the elements of negligence together. Think of every negligence case as a chain. Each link is a single element of negligence. The links must be held together, or the negligence claim is broken. You cannot prove negligence if one link is broken or missing.

Add LawBhoomi as your preferred source on Google.

Add Now →

To understand how this connection is established, it is important to look at the key elements of the chain of causation and how each one supports a negligence claim.

Two Main Parts of Causation

Causation has two main parts that must usually be shown in a negligence claim:

Factual Cause: Factual cause asks whether the injury would have happened without the defendant’s actions. In simple terms, the question is: “Would the injury have happened if the defendant had not acted carelessly?”
For example, if a driver runs a red light and hits another car, the crash may not have happened if the driver had stopped at the light. This clearly reflects that the driver’s actions were the factual cause of the injury.

Proximate Cause: Proximate cause means the injury was a direct and expected result of the defendant’s actions. The injury must have a clear connection to the defendant’s actions.
For example, A store employee leaves a wet floor without a warning sign, and a customer slips and breaks their arm. The employee’s actions are the proximate cause because the injury is a direct result of leaving the floor wet.

Discover the latest legal jobs and career openings.

View Jobs →

Breaking the Chain of Causation

Sometimes, another event happens after the defendant’s actions and changes what happens next. This may break the chain between the defendant’s actions and the injury. In other words, the defendant’s actions may have started the situation, but another event may become the main reason the injury occurred.

Intervening Act:  An intervening act is a new event that happens after the defendant’s actions and contributes to the injury. It may be caused by another person, the injured person, or an outside event. For example, a driver carelessly hits another car and causes minor injuries. While the injured person is being taken to the hospital, an unrelated and unexpected event causes a serious new injury. The later event may be considered an intervening act.

Not every intervening act breaks the chain of causation. If the later event was a normal or expected result of the defendant’s actions, the defendant may still be responsible. For example, if a person is injured in a car accident and needs medical treatment, complications from normal medical care may not automatically break the chain.

Severing Liability: Severing liability means that the defendant may no longer be legally responsible for the final injury because another event became the main cause of the harm. This usually depends on whether the later event was reasonably predictable or completely unexpected.

For example, a driver runs a red light and hits a pedestrian, causing a broken leg. While the pedestrian is waiting for treatment, another person intentionally causes a serious injury to the pedestrian. If that later act was completely unexpected and became the main cause of the new injury, it may break the chain of causation. The driver may still be responsible for the original broken leg but may not be responsible for the later injury.

The key question is whether the later event was a normal and foreseeable part of what the defendant started or whether it was so unexpected that it should be treated as a separate cause.

Key Takeaways

• Causation connects the defendant’s actions to the injury.
• Factual cause asks whether the injury would have happened without the defendant’s actions.
• Proximate cause requires the injury to be a direct and expected result of the defendant’s actions.
• An unexpected intervening act may break the chain of causation.
• A defendant may avoid liability for later harm if another event becomes the main cause of the injury.