The Two Faces of Causation: How Actual and Proximate Cause Shape Personal Injury Claims
Proving that someone negligently caused harm requires you to prove actual and proximate cause. Actual cause or “cause in fact” is the direct cause, like when a car hits your car. If the vehicle slams into the rear of your car because of the other driver’s inattentiveness or intoxication, the negligent driver is the actual cause of the accident. The legal or proximate cause is the foreseeable cause of someone’s negligence, meaning that the driver could have expected that they would hit another car if they were not paying attention, say texting while driving. Likewise, the drunk driver could expect to be in an accident when intoxicated since alcohol slows reflexes and distorts judgment of distance and speed.
When a driver speeds on an icy road, they might slide and lose control of the car, hitting another car or telephone or light pole. Most reasonable people understand the connection between the action and the foreseeable result. Taking it a step further, the driver might also foresee that if the car hits a light pole hard enough, it will topple and hit someone or something nearby, their vehicle, or property. The legal or proximate cause of the injuries to the car, person, or property damaged is the driver’s negligent driving or speeding on ice.
Proximate cause is measured by the “but for” test, which states that if not for (but for) the negligent party’s action or inaction, the accident victim would not have suffered injuries and damages.
How New Jersey Courts Determine Proximate Cause in Personal Injury Cases
In New Jersey, the law requires you to prove the connection between your damages and the responsible party, not some other source. A court will instruct a jury to establish that the defendant’s negligent actions were a “substantial factor” in causing the injury or losses, which was a foreseeable outcome from the defendant’s negligence. Substantial means the negligent act or acts are primarily responsible for the injury or loss, even if there are other causes. Foreseeability is a legal concept that New Jersey courts have clarified through the years.
In the 2002 case of Campbell vs. Hastings, the New Jersey Appellate Court analyzed whether a landowner had “a duty of reasonable care to avoid foreseeable harm” to an individual injured on his property by considering four factors: the relationship of the injured and responsible parties, “the nature of the attendant risk” (in this case the condition of the property), whether the responsible party was able to “exercise care,” and “the public interest in the proposed solution.” In this case, A 75-year-old woman fell in the defendant’s home, claiming an unlit foyer and an unknown step caused her fall and injuries. The Appeals Court noted that the woman was invited to the defendant’s house and the dangerousness of the home condition was a foreseeable factor that someone would get hurt from it.
Navigating Proximate Cause Across the Spectrum of Personal Injury Claims in New Jersey
The proximate cause of a car accident can be straightforward or unclear. For example, when a rear-end car accident occurs on a busy freeway, a reasonable person would not exit their car, risking getting run down by a speeding vehicle. However, a head injury or smoke filling the car may foreseeably cause the person to flee the vehicle. A jury could decide the substantial cause for the victim’s injuries is the driver’s negligence. The victim’s confused or panicked flight from the car is foreseeable.
Likewise, the proximate cause of a slip-and-fall accident in a supermarket could be clear or muddy. A spill on a slippery floor can lead to someone falling and getting injured. However, when the victim gets up and leans against a nearby flimsy cardboard display that collapses, raining food cans down on the victim, the proximate cause for the cuts, bruises, and head injury may not be foreseeable harm from slipping on a slippery floor. In other cases involving premises liability, when someone trips and falls on lifted pavers on your property, you may be responsible for the injured victim’s damages. Unless the property is completely fenced off and inaccessible to the public, it may be foreseeable that an accident could injure a person on a property with a dangerous condition.
In medical malpractice claims, a surgeon negligently leaving gauze or an instrument inside a patient may foreseeably cause an infection. In other words, the negligent act caused the patient’s infection and injuries. Furthermore, a defective product from a store may cause an injury to the end user. However, the injury must be reasonably foreseeable from the ordinary use of the product. So, when someone uses a loaded gun as a hammer, the manufacturer is probably not liable for the user’s unforeseeable use of the gun and resulting injuries. However, when the gun’s defective trigger harms the user while target shooting, the manufacturer is probably liable for the user’s injuries.
How Intervening or Superseding Causes Impact Proximate Cause in Personal Injury Cases
A superseding or intervening cause is unforeseeable and, therefore, may make it impossible to link the negligent actor to the resulting injuries. It disrupts the chain of causes that lead to harm. For example, when a mechanic negligently repairs your brakes, but your injury results from a tree falling on your car after leaving the mechanic, the tree is the superseding cause of your injuries.
The Role of Proximate Cause in Personal Injury Compensation
Without proving that a negligent actor proximately caused your injury, the actor is not liable to compensate you for your damages. You can only seek compensation from someone who actually and proximately caused the harm, meaning reasonably could have foreseen that their carelessness would lead to the injuries that you suffered. Only someone who actually and proximately caused your damages is liable to compensate you for your losses, such as medical costs, wage losses, and pain and suffering that you experienced in the past and will experience in the future.
Let’s Discuss Your Case. Chamlin, Uliano & Walsh can Explain How Proximate Cause Affects Your Personal Injury Case in New Jersey
Proving proximate cause takes legal knowledge of the statutory and case law, including the history of the legal concept as it developed from various situations and factual circumstances. Our personal injury lawyers at Chamlin, Uliano & Walsh have dedicated years of experience to resolving negligence cases through negotiation or litigation, developing a comprehensive understanding of the nuances and subtleties of proving proximate cause. We can use all of our insight and tactical skill to establish all of the necessary elements to prove your personal injury case, whether it involves a car accident, a motorcycle accident, a slip and fall incident, or another injurious event precipitated by someone else’s negligence. We proudly serve clients in Holmdel, Wall, Manasquan, Red Bank, Long Branch, Middletown, Colts Neck, and elsewhere throughout Monmouth County and Ocean County. Seek help from a personal injury lawyer on our team today at 732-440-3950 or request a free consultation with our form to learn more.