Negligence - Legal or proximate cause

Learning Outcomes

After reading this article, you will be able to explain the concept of legal or proximate cause in negligence, distinguish it from actual cause, apply the foreseeability test, analyze the effect of intervening and superseding causes, and determine the scope of liability for negligent acts. You will be equipped to answer MBE questions on how courts limit liability for remote or unforeseeable consequences.

MBE Syllabus

For MBE, you are required to understand how courts determine the scope of liability in negligence actions. This article covers:

  • The distinction between actual cause and legal (proximate) cause.
  • The foreseeability test for proximate cause.
  • The effect of intervening and superseding causes on liability.
  • The "eggshell plaintiff" rule regarding the extent of damages.
  • The difference between direct and indirect cause cases.
  • The role of foreseeability in limiting liability for unusual or remote consequences.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

  1. In a negligence case, what is the primary function of the doctrine of proximate cause?
    1. To determine if the defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff.
    2. To limit liability to harms that are foreseeable results of the defendant's conduct.
    3. To establish whether the defendant's act was a factual cause of the harm.
    4. To require proof of intent to harm.
  2. Which of the following is most likely a superseding cause that will relieve a defendant of liability?
    1. Ordinary negligence by a rescuer.
    2. A foreseeable medical complication.
    3. An unforeseeable criminal act by a third party.
    4. A subsequent accident caused by the plaintiff's weakened condition.
  3. Under the "eggshell plaintiff" rule, a defendant is:
    1. Only liable for the harm that was foreseeable.
    2. Liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's injuries, even if unusually severe.
    3. Not liable if the plaintiff had a pre-existing condition.
    4. Liable only if the plaintiff's injuries were minor.

Introduction

In negligence, a defendant is not automatically liable for every harm that follows from their breach of duty. Courts use the doctrine of legal or proximate cause to limit liability to those harms that are sufficiently connected to the defendant's conduct. Proximate cause is a policy-based rule that restricts recovery to injuries that are foreseeable and not too remote. It is distinct from actual (factual) cause, which is addressed by the "but for" or "substantial factor" tests.

Key Term: Proximate Cause The legal limitation on negligence liability, restricting recovery to harms that are a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct.

The Role of Proximate Cause

Proximate cause is the second step in causation analysis. Even if the defendant's breach was an actual cause of the plaintiff's injury, the court must decide whether the injury is close enough in time and relation to the breach to justify liability. The main test is foreseeability: Was the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's negligent act?

Key Term: Foreseeability The standard used to determine whether the type of harm or the manner in which it occurred was a reasonably predictable result of the defendant's conduct.

Direct and Indirect Cause Cases

Direct Cause

A direct cause case is one where the defendant's negligence leads straight to the plaintiff's injury, with no significant intervening event. If the harm is of a kind that makes the defendant's conduct negligent, liability usually follows—even if the precise manner or extent of the harm was unusual.

Indirect Cause and Intervening Events

An indirect cause case involves an intervening event between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury. An intervening cause is any event that occurs after the defendant's act and contributes to the harm.

Key Term: Intervening Cause An event occurring after the defendant's negligent act that contributes to the plaintiff's injury.

If the intervening cause is foreseeable, it will not break the chain of causation, and the defendant remains liable. If the intervening cause is extraordinary or unforeseeable, it may be classified as a superseding cause, which relieves the defendant of liability for subsequent harm.

Key Term: Superseding Cause An unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the chain of causation and absolves the original defendant of liability for subsequent harm.

Foreseeable and Unforeseeable Results

  • Foreseeable Results: If the general type of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is liable even if the exact sequence of events was unusual.
  • Unforeseeable Results: If the harm is of a type not reasonably anticipated from the defendant's conduct, liability is usually denied.

Worked Example 1.1

A driver negligently leaves a car blocking a fire hydrant. A fire breaks out nearby, and firefighters are delayed in accessing water, resulting in greater property damage. Is the driver liable for the increased damage?

Answer: Yes. The increased property damage is a foreseeable result of blocking a hydrant, so proximate cause is satisfied.

Worked Example 1.2

A shopkeeper negligently leaves a trapdoor open. A customer falls in and is injured. While being transported to the hospital, the ambulance is struck by a drunk driver, causing further injury to the customer. Is the shopkeeper liable for the additional injury?

Answer: Yes, unless the ambulance driver's conduct was so unforeseeable and extraordinary as to be a superseding cause. Ordinary negligence by rescuers is generally foreseeable.

Intervening vs. Superseding Causes

  • Foreseeable Intervening Causes (No Break in Liability):

    • Medical malpractice in treating the original injury.
    • Negligence by rescuers.
    • Efforts by others to protect life or property.
    • Subsequent disease or accident due to the weakened condition caused by the original injury.

  • Superseding Causes (Break in Liability):

    • Unforeseeable criminal acts or intentional torts by third parties.
    • Extraordinary natural disasters.
    • Grossly negligent or intentional acts that are not a normal response to the situation.

Worked Example 1.3

A contractor negligently leaves a ladder outside a building. A thief uses the ladder to break into the building and steal valuables. Is the contractor liable for the theft?

Answer: No. The criminal act of the thief is an unforeseeable superseding cause, breaking the chain of proximate cause.

The "Eggshell Plaintiff" Rule

A defendant takes the plaintiff as found. If the plaintiff has a pre-existing vulnerability or condition, the defendant is liable for the full extent of the injury, even if it is more severe than what would be expected for an average person.

Key Term: Eggshell Plaintiff Rule The principle that a defendant is liable for the full extent of a plaintiff's injury, even if the injury is unexpectedly severe due to a pre-existing condition.

Extent of Damages

Proximate cause limits the type of harm for which a defendant is liable, but not the extent. If the type of harm is foreseeable, the defendant is responsible for all resulting damages, no matter how serious.

Exam Warning

The most common MBE trap is confusing actual cause with proximate cause. Remember: Even if the defendant's act was a factual cause, liability is limited to foreseeable harms. Always analyze both steps.

Revision Tip

When analyzing a negligence question, ask: Was the type of harm suffered by the plaintiff a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct? If not, proximate cause is likely missing.

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

  • Proximate cause limits negligence liability to foreseeable harms.
  • Foreseeability is the main test for proximate cause.
  • Intervening causes that are foreseeable do not break the chain of causation.
  • Superseding causes (unforeseeable, extraordinary events) relieve the defendant of liability for subsequent harm.
  • The "eggshell plaintiff" rule makes the defendant liable for the full extent of injury, even if unusually severe.
  • Proximate cause is distinct from actual cause; both must be satisfied for liability.

Key Terms and Concepts

  • Proximate Cause
  • Foreseeability
  • Intervening Cause
  • Superseding Cause
  • Eggshell Plaintiff Rule
The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
AdaptiBar
One-time Fee
$395
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
BarPrepHero
One-time Fee
$299
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350
Quimbee
One-time Fee
$1,199

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal