Cyr v. Adamar Associates Ltd. Partnership

Causation

The next element of a negligence claim is for the plaintiff to demonstrate causation. In order to recover, the plaintiff must show that the defendant's conduct was the cause in fact of the injury. This is often decided by using the “but for” test. Under this test, the question is whether the injury would have
occurred “but for” the actions of the defendant. If the answer is “No,” then causation is satisfied. Courts have modified this test to allow for cases where the defendant's behavior was a joint cause of the harm by asking whether the action was a “substantial factor” in the chain of causation.

The ultimate legal test for causation is whether the conduct complained of is the proximate or legal cause of the injury to the plaintiff. The concept of proximate cause serves to limit liability by cutting off the chain of causation when the injury is deemed to be too remote. This is frequently expressed in terms of the foreseeable nature of the harm as we saw in the Weirum case. The general rule is that the wrongdoer is liable for all harm that is reasonably foreseeable as a result of his or her acts or omissions. Hence, a defendant will be liable for all foreseeable damage, even though it results from an intervening force. Such intervening forces are called dependent intervening forces, and include causes such as a subsequent medical malpractice or the negligence of rescuers. For example, assume A is driving recklessly and causes an accident that harms B. If B is picked up in an ambulance driven by C, and C has an accident on the way to the hospital because he failed to put on his siren, C's intervening negligence will not relieve A of liability for the initial injury or the additional injuries caused by the second accident. However, when the plaintiff is unable to produce evidence showing a direct causal relationship to the tort, courts will cut off liability as shown in the following case.