CAUSATION:

The third element of negligence is causation. There are two types of negligent causation, actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause is sometimes referred to as cause in fact. It means that “but for” the negligent act or omission of the defendant, the plaintiff would not have been harmed. This is known as the “but for” test. For example, driver A is passing through an intersection with a green light. Driver B runs the red light and strikes driver A’s vehicle and injures driver A. Clearly, “but for“ the running of the red light by driver B, driver A’s vehicle would not have been struck by driver B, and drive A would not have been harmed.

The second type of negligent causation is proximate cause. Proximate cause requires the natural, direct, and uninterrupted consequence of a negligent act or omission to be the cause of a plaintiff’s injury. Proximate cause also requires foreseeability. It must be foreseeable as to the result, and also as to the plaintiff. If the result is too remote, too far removed, or too unusual from the defendant’s act or omission so as to make them unforeseeable, then the defendant is not the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s harm.

For example, driver A is speeding. A squirrel runs in front of driver A’s car so driver A swerves, and because of the high rate of speed of which he is traveling, loses control of his vehicle and hits a mailbox. The mailbox flies so violently up in the air from the impact that it hits an overhead powerline. The force of the mailbox hitting the powerline forces the powerline to break off the utility pole onto the sidewalk where it is still electrified. A pedestrian approaching the scene steps on the powerline and is injured by the live powerline. A jury may find that driver A’s actions are not the proximate cause of the pedestrian’s injuries, because the resulting harm is so remote and so unusual as to render them unforeseeable.

Eggshell theory:

The “eggshell theory” is the legal doctrine regarding causation that a tortfeasor takes their victim as they find them. So, if a plaintiff is more severely harmed than a normal person because of a preexisting condition, the defendant will still be held as the cause of the harm. For example, let’s say our plaintiff has a blood disorder that causes her to bleed and bruise more easily than most people. The plaintiff’s injuries due to an automobile accident caused by the defendant are far more severe than would be expected from the low impact of the accident. In fact, most normal people would have been able to just walk away from the accident with no harm. However, the plaintiff was required to receive blood transfusions and remain in the hospital for two weeks as a result of this accident. Under the eggshell theory, the defendant’s actions would still be the cause of the harm to the plaintiff even though the results were not foreseeable.