Also known as: proximate cause test · proximate cause tests · proximate cause · causation test
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A causation standard that limits liability to harms sufficiently connected to the defendant's conduct. The test requires more than factual causation and examines whether the harm was a foreseeable or direct result of the act or omission.
Philip Powell allowed his twelve-year-old son to drive the family car after dark despite knowing the boy lacked a license. The son struck and injured a pedestrian. The pedestrian sued the father. The court examined whether the father's decision to entrust the car was close enough to the collision to support liability.
Prism Analytics executives in the United States directed agents abroad to detain and question a foreign national. The agents used excessive force causing serious injury. The national sued the company. The court assessed whether the domestic planning was sufficiently connected to the overseas injury to allow recovery.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Perry Pratt and an accomplice robbed a liquor store. The owner, who had a weak heart, suffered a fatal heart attack during the robbery. The state charged the robbers with murder. The court determined whether the robbery was close enough in causation to the death to support the felony-murder conviction.
Prime Logistics engaged in a pattern of mail fraud that inflated its reported revenues. Investors who purchased stock at the inflated prices suffered losses when the fraud was revealed. The investors sued under RICO. The court evaluated whether the fraudulent acts were sufficiently connected to the stock losses to support the damages claim.
The test requires proof that the felony was not only the but-for cause but also sufficiently connected to the death to justify murder liability. This connection limits the harshness of the felony-murder rule by excluding deaths too remote or accidental.
Supporting sources
Yes. The test examines whether the third-party act was a foreseeable risk created by the defendant's conduct. When the intervening act is within the scope of the original risk, liability is not cut off.
Supporting sources
Foreseeability determines whether the harm is within the scope of the risk created by the breach. When the injury is a foreseeable result of the defendant's conduct, the test is satisfied even if the precise manner of harm was unexpected.
Supporting sources
No. Liability requires the parent's own negligent act, such as entrustment or supervision, to be a proximate cause of the child's conduct. The relationship alone does not satisfy the test.
Supporting sources
…or omissions in the United States and the resulting damage or injury in a foreign country"). Recognizing this connection of proximate cause between domestic behavior and foreign harm or injury is not, however, sufficient of itself to bar application of the foreign country exception to a claim resting on that same foreign…