Causation is a critical element in any personal injury claim. Regardless of the defendant’s level of negligence, the claim cannot succeed without establishing a direct link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries. Causation is typically broken down into two components: actual cause and proximate cause. Both must be demonstrated to prove liability in a personal injury case.
Actual Cause
“Actual cause” is a fairly straightforward idea. It is present if you can say that “but for the defendant’s misconduct, the plaintiff would not have suffered their injury.” Actual cause is the common sense version of causation that all of us apply to everyday life. Proving actual cause, however, is not enough to establish the causation element of a personal injury claim.
As an example, if a defendant ran a stoplight and plowed into your car while talking on their mobile phone, it is fair to say that the defendant’s distracted driving was the actual cause of the accident and, by extension, any injuries that you suffered in the accident.
Proximate Cause
In addition to actual cause, you also need to establish proximate cause to win a personal injury claim. Georgia courts are heavily influenced by the landmark New York case Palsfgraf v. Long Island RR, which serves to define proximate cause. Essentially, proximate cause is present if the plaintiff’s injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the plaintiff’s injury. “Freak accidents” do not generate liability simply because proximate cause is not present even if actual cause is.
Intervening and Superseding Causes
There are certain events that might interrupt causation. An intervening cause is an event that occurs after the defendant’s wrongful act and contributes to the plaintiff’s harm. Depending on the magnitude of its effect on the chain of events leading to the plaintiff’s harm, it may or may not relieve the defendant of liability. If it does, it is not only an intervening cause but also a superseding cause–a specific kind of intervening cause, one that’s so unrelated to the defendant’s negligence that it relieves the defendant of legal responsibility for a plaintiff’s injury.
An example of an intervening cause would be if the defendant caused a car accident, leaving the plaintiff’s car inoperable in the middle of the road. Now, suppose an intoxicated driver in an oncoming car crashes into the plaintiff’s stranded car, causing injury. If the impact of the third party’s intoxicated driving was decisive enough, a court might declare it a superseding cause. This would relieve the defendant of liability but would likely shift it to the intoxicated third party.
The Nuances of Causation Under Georgia Law
Personal injury law is state law, and state laws are broadly similar in their treatment of both forms of causation. Each state, however, applies its own nuances to the application and interpretation of personal injury law.
Georgia courts, for example, have developed robust case law concerning intervening and superseding cause, often finding superseding cause in situations where most out-of-state courts would not. Williams v. Grier is a landmark Georgia case that illustrates the attitudes of Georgia courts toward intervening and superseding causes.
Establishing Causation Is Worthless Without Proof of Damages
Causation is just one piece of the personal injury puzzle. To hold the defendant liable, you must prove damages:
- Economic damages are easy-to-count losses such as medical expenses and lost earnings.
- Non-economic damages are difficult-to-count losses such as pain and suffering.
- Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant, but Georgia courts rarely award them.
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove their claim. If the defendant asserts an affirmative defense (such as assumption of risk), however, the defendant holds the burden of proving their defense.
Contact a Personal Injury Lawyer For Help
Causation is a fundamental element in personal injury claims, requiring both actual and proximate cause to establish liability. Actual cause proves that “but for” the defendant’s actions, the plaintiff would not have been harmed, while proximate cause ensures that the injury was a foreseeable result of those actions. Intervening and superseding causes may disrupt this chain, potentially absolving the defendant of liability depending on the circumstances. However, causation alone is not enough—damages must also be proven. Contact Bowen Painter Injury Lawyers today at (912) 335-1909 to discuss pursuing a personal injury claim to recover these expenses.