Also known as: actual causes · cause in fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
The factual connection between conduct and harm established when the harm would not have occurred but for the conduct.
Angela Acosta and Andrew Avery both fire shotguns toward Antonio Alvarado during a hunting dispute. One pellet strikes Alvarado in the eye, but ballistics cannot determine whose gun fired it. Alvarado sues both for negligence. The court shifts the burden to each defendant to prove his shot was not the actual cause of the injury.
Andre Antoine is charged with unlawful possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Prosecutors must show that his possession was an actual cause of resulting harm. But for his decision to keep the weapon, the prohibited possession and any ensuing injury would not have existed.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ava Adebayo buys a house from Anita Ali without learning of a prior murder on the property. She later claims the nondisclosure caused her emotional distress and reduced resale value. But for the seller's failure to reveal the fact, Adebayo would not have purchased the home at the agreed price.
Ashford Manufacturing supplies a pneumatic tool later altered by the purchaser. Anchor Bank employees are injured when the tool fails. The court examines whether the original design was an actual cause of the injuries even after the modification.
Ava Adebayo assists a terminally ill patient with ending life under a state statute. Prosecutors allege the assistance was an actual cause of resulting harm. But for the assistance, the patient would not have died at that time and in that manner.
The but-for test asks whether the harm would have occurred without the defendant's conduct. If the harm would not have happened but for that conduct, actual causation is established.
Actual cause is the factual, but-for connection between conduct and harm. Proximate cause adds a legal limitation based on foreseeability and policy that cuts off liability for remote consequences even when factual causation exists.
When multiple negligent defendants could have caused a single indivisible harm and the plaintiff cannot identify which one actually caused it, each defendant must prove his conduct was not the actual cause or face joint liability.
Yes. Each act that alone would have caused the harm is treated as an actual cause even if other acts were also sufficient.
…112, at 6–8 (Iowa Ct. App. 2009) (table decision) (holding that the State must show that the discriminatory motive was the cause in fact of the offense to establish a hate crime under Iowa law), aff’d in relevant part, 791 N.W.2d 828 (Iowa 2010). The government separately points to a case involving Section 1 of the Hate…