Also known as: causal connections · causation
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A factual or legal relationship between conduct and a resulting injury or consequence that must be shown to establish liability, standing, or admissibility of evidence.
Cade Carpenter and Corinne Cho each negligently stored chemicals near a shared worksite. A worker suffered severe burns from an explosion traced to one of the storage areas, but no evidence identified which defendant's negligence triggered the blast. The court shifted the burden to each defendant to prove his storage practices did not cause the injury.
Charles Cunningham stabbed a victim during a fight. The victim lingered for fourteen months before dying from complications. Prosecutors could not charge homicide even though the wound clearly started the chain of events leading to death.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Camila Cervantes sued two contractors after a building collapse injured her. The contractors disputed whether their respective work on separate support beams contributed to the failure. The judge ruled that the evidence created no jury question on whether either contractor's conduct was a substantial factor in the collapse.
Christine Castro intimidated a witness into leaving the state before trial. The witness later refused to testify. The prosecution could not introduce the witness's prior statement because it failed to prove Castro acted with the specific purpose of preventing testimony.
Cynthia Cortez sued a medical device maker after suffering complications from an implant. She showed the device carried undisclosed risks but offered no evidence that a better warning would have changed her physician's decision to prescribe it. The court entered judgment for the manufacturer.
Continental Bank challenged a state minimum-wage law requiring higher pay for women workers. The statute imposed the wage floor based solely on workers' living needs rather than any connection to the value of services performed for the bank. The Court struck down the law.
A plaintiff must prove the protected activity was a but-for cause of the adverse action. Courts accept direct statements, patterns of negative treatment after complaints, false reasons given by the employer, increased scrutiny, or close temporal proximity between the activity and the action.
No. While close timing can support an inference, courts examine whether the employer knew of the protected activity and whether other evidence shows the timing was not coincidental. Longer gaps weaken the inference unless accompanied by other indicators of retaliation.
The rule bars liability if the victim dies more than a year and a day after the injury. Even clear but-for causation is insufficient once the period expires.
The government must show the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying. Mere causation of unavailability without that intent is insufficient.
…conduct of the recipients toward the plaintiff and because the recipients, the only witnesses able to establish the necessary causal connection, may be reluctant to testify that the publication affected their relationships with the plaintiff. Thus some presumptions are necessary if the plaintiff is to be adequately compensated."…