What is Causation?
You have undoubtedly heard the term causation if you have an ongoing personal injury claim. Causation is a critical element of any negligence claim. If you fail to prove that the defendant caused the harm, then you cannot expect to recover damages from the defendant.
Unfortunately, causation can be much more complicated than people expect. It is rarely as simple and clear-cut as we’d like. There are two distinct types of causation that we will discuss below. If at any point you have further questions about causation or how it applies to your case, contact a personal injury lawyer for advice.
Elements Of Negligence
Every negligence claim has four different elements. You need to prove each element by a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence is the burden of proof. It means that it is more likely than not proven to be true.
The four parts to every negligence claim are:
- Duty of care
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation (direct cause and proximate cause)
- Damages
You will lose your case if you fail to prove even one element. Some of the elements are easier to prove than others. Unfortunately, causation tends to be one of the most difficult elements to prove in a negligence claim.
Direct Cause
Many people are confused when they learn that causation has two parts. The direct cause is the actual cause or the “cause in fact.” Most people think about this when they say one thing causes another.
Most courts apply a but-for test when deciding the direct cause. This means that but for the defendant’s negligent actions, the plaintiff would not have suffered harm. If the plaintiff may still have been hurt regardless of the defendant’s action, then there is no direct cause.
For example, imagine a driver opening their door after parallel parking and hitting a bicyclist. The bicyclist would not have been hit if the driver hadn’t opened the door.
Proximate Cause
Proximate cause is considerably more complicated than direct cause. Proximate cause deals with foreseeability: whether something was a foreseeable result of an action.
The reason that foreseeability matters in a negligence case is because negligence is about avoidable accidents. Only foreseeable accidents are avoidable. Someone cannot be held legally responsible for a completely unavoidable and unforeseeable freak accident.
The most common test for proximate cause is the foreseeability test. The court will ask whether or not the harm was the foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions. For example, if a driver speeds, the foreseeable result is that they will cause an accident.
On the other hand, if a driver is speeding and a pedestrian observes the car and immediately has a stroke, speeding is probably not the proximate cause of the stroke. It is not foreseeable that speeding will cause a pedestrian to have a stroke.
It is important to distinguish that the defendant does not need to be able to predict the harm. A defendant doesn’t need to know that their actions are likely to hurt another person. The foreseeability test is subjective. Therefore, if the court concludes that the harm is the foreseeable result of the action, it doesn’t matter what the defendant did or did not know.
Multiple Proximate Causes
The proximate cause becomes more complicated when multiple people cause an accident. In this case, there could be multiple defendants in a lawsuit. Multiple people’s actions can be the proximate cause of one event, and each person can be held responsible for part of the damages.
The best example is a multi-car accident. One driver may be speeding, another texting and driving, and a third following too closely. If all of these drivers are involved in a crash that hurts the plaintiff, the court may find that their collective actions caused the accident.
Superseding Causes And Events
Another key part of the proximate cause is that the chain of events was unbroken. There cannot be a superseding cause or event that caused the accident.
For example, imagine that the defendant rear-ended the plaintiff after following too closely. Both drivers pulled over onto the side of the road. After pulling over, another driver crashes into the plaintiff and causes an injury. The defendant is not responsible for the plaintiff’s injury from the second crash.
Even though the defendant is responsible for the damages from the first accident, once they pulled over, a superseding event (another driver crashing into the plaintiff) caused further injury.
How Do You Prove Causation?
Producing relevant evidence is the best way to prove causation in a personal injury case. The type of evidence may vary depending on the facts of your case. Some of the most common types of evidence are:
- Video footage
- Photographs
- Eyewitness testimony
- Expert witness testimony
- Medical records
- Police reports
- Accident reenactment
The strongest evidence tends to exist right after an accident or injury. After a long time has passed, it tends to degrade. The best way to collect the best evidence to support causation in your case is to talk with a personal injury lawyer immediately.
If you’ve been injured in an accident, you deserve compensation for the full extent of your injuries. You’ll need a Kentucky personal injury attorney in your corner—an experienced attorney from HJV Car Accident Personal Injury Lawyers can make a case for you to receive economic and non-economic damages.
Contact us to schedule a free consultation at (859) 578-4444. We have two convenient locations in Kentucky, including Louisville and Fort Mitchell.