Cause-in-Fact

Definition

Cause-in-fact, also known as actual cause, is a fundamental element in determining liability for negligence and intentional torts. It refers to the direct link between an action (or inaction) and the resulting harm or injury.

5 Must Know Facts For Your Next Test

1. Cause-in-fact is a threshold requirement for liability in both negligence and intentional tort cases.
2. The but-for test is the most common method for establishing cause-in-fact, requiring the plaintiff to show the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's actions.
3. Cause-in-fact can be established through direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, or a combination of both.
4. Intervening causes can break the chain of causation and absolve the defendant of liability if the intervening event was unforeseeable.
5. In some cases, multiple causes may contribute to an injury, leading to the application of the substantial factor test to determine cause-in-fact.

Review Questions

• Explain the role of cause-in-fact in establishing liability for negligence.
  • To establish liability for negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant's actions or inactions were the cause-in-fact of the injury. This means the plaintiff must show that the harm would not have occurred 'but for' the defendant's breach of the duty of care. The but-for test is used to determine if the defendant's conduct was a necessary antecedent of the plaintiff's injury. If the injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant's actions, then the defendant's conduct is not the cause-in-fact, and liability cannot be established.
• Describe how cause-in-fact differs from proximate cause in the context of intentional torts.
  • While cause-in-fact focuses on the direct link between the defendant's actions and the resulting harm, proximate cause considers the foreseeability and closeness of the connection between the two. In intentional tort cases, cause-in-fact may be more easily established, as the defendant's intentional actions are the direct cause of the plaintiff's injury. However, the defendant may still avoid liability if the harm was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their intentional conduct, which is the domain of proximate cause. Establishing both cause-in-fact and proximate cause is necessary to hold the defendant liable for an intentional tort.
• Analyze how the presence of an intervening cause can impact the determination of cause-in-fact in a negligence case.
  • In a negligence case, the presence of an intervening cause can break the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injury, thereby negating the cause-in-fact element. If an unforeseeable event occurs that interrupts the sequence of events leading to the harm, the defendant may no longer be liable, even if their negligence was an initial cause of the injury. The court must determine whether the intervening cause was a superseding event that was not reasonably foreseeable, or whether the defendant's negligence was still a substantial factor in bringing about the harm. The determination of cause-in-fact in the face of an intervening cause requires a careful analysis of the specific facts and circumstances of the case.

Related terms

Proximate Cause:

The legal cause of an injury or harm, which is closely connected to the defendant's actions and foreseeability of the consequences.

Intervening Cause: An unforeseeable event that interrupts the chain of causation between the defendant's actions and the plaintiff's injury.

But-for Test: A test used to determine cause-in-fact, where the plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's actions.