Proximate Cause: Definitions & Examples (2025)

Proximate Cause Definition

The proximate cause meaning is the direct link between an action and injury, creating a basis for liability. In personal injury cases, the defendant’s deliberate or negligent actions must be closely related to the plaintiff’s injuries. If they aren’t, then the plaintiff cannot recover damages.

Sometimes it is easy to determine a proximate cause. For example, if Susan chooses to ignore a red light while driving and strikes Alex’s car in the intersection, then Susan’s actions are the proximate cause for injuries Alex suffers in the car accident.

Proximate Cause vs. Actual Cause

Our car accident example becomes more complicated if Susan is waiting at the red light when her car is struck by Dave failing to stop behind her. That impact then pushes her car into the intersection, where she strikes Alex’s car. In that case, Susan’s car actually struck Alex’s car, but the proximate cause of Alex’s injuries would be Dave’s actions. This is the difference between proximate cause (legal cause) vs. actual cause (also called cause in fact).

Actual cause and proximate cause have different contexts. The proximate cause meaning focuses on accountability—identifying who is legally responsible for the injury, not just what physically caused it.

Proximate Cause Examples

In legal cases, proximate cause meaning often determines who can be held accountable for a plaintiff’s injuries, focusing on whether the events leading to harm were reasonably foreseeable under the reasonable person standard. Let’s revisit our car accident example involving Susan, Alex, and Dave. Susan’s car strikes Alex’s car in an intersection after Dave negligently drives into Susan’s car. In this example, Susan’s car is the actual cause of the accident with Alex because her vehicle strikes his. However, Dave’s negligent driving is the proximate cause of the accident between Susan and Alex’s vehicles because it would not have occurred without his actions.

Proximate cause can also be found in product liability lawsuits where the defendant was not even present at the time of injury. Consider if Dave did not cause the accident by driving negligently, but instead a defect in his vehicle caused his brakes to fail as he drove up behind Susan’s car. In that case, the manufacturer of the defective vehicle part would instead be liable as their product was the proximate cause of the accident.

Premises liability cases also look to proximate cause rules. For example, consider store employees who spill liquid on the floor of a shop and fail to clean it up or warn shoppers. If a customer slips and falls due to the spill, then the store will be liable for the customer’s injuries because the spill was the proximate cause of the injury.

Proximate Cause in Insurance and Liability

Understanding proximate cause meaning is also crucial in insurance cases, as insurers often examine whether the cause of an injury falls under covered risks. For example, if a storm causes a tree to fall onto a car, the insurer would look into the initial event (the storm) as the proximate cause, which may or may not be covered by the policy.

When a policy excludes certain events, proximate cause can determine whether the insurer is liable. Suppose a homeowner has fire damage due to faulty wiring. If the policy excludes damages from faulty wiring, the insurer might deny coverage, citing the proximate cause of the fire.

Proximate Cause Tests

The way you prove proximate cause in court varies depending upon the laws in the state. Here are the most commonly used tests and what they require.

Substantial factor test

Under this test, a plaintiff’s actions are considered the proximate cause for harm caused if their conduct played a substantial role in bringing about the harm. Actions that are found to be remote or only trivial factors in the harm will either be deemed not a proximate cause or assigned a lesser degree of fault.

For example, what if Dave had been held up on his drive by a group of jaywalking pedestrians. This causes him stress and he speeds to make up time, ultimately running into Susan’s vehicle when he fails to stop behind her vehicle. Dave’s driving was a substantial factor in the accident with Susan’s vehicle. The jaywalking pedestrians, although engaged in improper behavior that caused Dave stress, were probably not a substantial factor in the later accident.

“But for” test

Simply put, this test requires a showing that the harm would not have occurred “but for” the actions of the defendant.

For example, let’s look back at our fictional car accident. Even though Alex’s car was actually struck by Susan’s, it would not have happened but for Dave’s failure to stop before he struck Susan’s car.

Foreseeable test

This test is largely out of favor, but is still used by some insurance companies when they review claims. It requires that harm suffered by a plaintiff be a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions. There is therefore no proximate cause for actions that cause unusual or unexpected injuries. States like Washington specifically exclude this test from jury instructions.

The standards for deciding proximate cause are laid out in jury instructions at trial. It can be very helpful to have a lawyer persuasively arguing your case before a jury to ensure they hear all of the facts that support your case. A lawyer will also be familiar with the applicable tests in your state.