Proving Causation In A New Jersey Negligence Claim

Proving Causation In A New Jersey Negligence Claim

Connecting the Breach to the Injury

Once duty and breach have been established, the plaintiff in a negligence case must prove that the defendant’s conduct caused the harm alleged. This element, causation, is often the most contested and complex component of the negligence analysis. While a duty may be clear and a breach well documented, a case cannot survive unless there is a demonstrable link between the defendant’s actions and the plaintiff’s injuries.

Under New Jersey law, causation consists of two parts: actual cause, also known as "cause in fact," and proximate cause. Both must be proven for the negligence claim to succeed. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant’s breach and that the harm was reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of that breach.

Actual Cause: The “But For” Test

Actual cause is the more straightforward component. It asks whether the injury would have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct. This is a factual question that examines the direct chain of events. If the injury would have occurred regardless of what the defendant did or failed to do, then actual cause is not satisfied.

For example, consider a driver who runs a red light and crashes into another vehicle, injuring its driver. If the collision and the injury would not have occurred but for the driver running the red light, then actual cause is established. It is a direct, uninterrupted sequence: the negligent act caused the harm.

Problems arise when multiple contributing factors are present. Suppose the injured driver in the above example was not wearing a seatbelt. The defendant may argue that the injuries were due in part, or entirely, to the plaintiff’s own failure to take proper precautions. These arguments go to comparative fault, which can reduce but not necessarily eliminate the defendant’s liability. However, if the defendant can show that the injuries would have occurred in the same way regardless of the red light violation, actual causation may fail entirely.

Proximate Cause: Legal Responsibility Based on Foreseeability

Proximate cause is not concerned with the factual chain of events alone. It focuses on whether the type of harm suffered was a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct. This inquiry imposes a legal limit on how far liability can extend. It is possible for a defendant’s actions to set off a chain of events that results in injury to someone far removed from the original conduct, but the law does not impose liability for every outcome that might follow.

The classic New Jersey test for proximate cause asks whether the harm was within the general field of risk created by the defendant’s conduct. The courts look to whether the injury was a natural and probable consequence of the breach. If the result is deemed too remote or too dependent on unusual, unforeseeable circumstances, proximate cause may be lacking.

In the premises liability scenario introduced in the earlier posts, a woman slips on a puddle of water in a grocery store and fractures her wrist. If the water had been accumulating for over an hour and no warning signs were posted, the resulting fall and injury are precisely the type of harm that would be anticipated from a failure to maintain a safe walking surface. Both actual cause and proximate cause would likely be satisfied.

Contrast that with a situation where a customer slips, drops a bottle of juice that shatters, and another patron later cuts themselves on the glass. While the store’s failure to clean the original puddle may have factually contributed to the second customer’s injury, the court could find that the harm was too remote or unforeseeable to establish proximate cause.

Intervening Acts and Superseding Causes

A frequent challenge in causation disputes arises when an intervening event plays a role in the harm suffered. Not all intervening acts break the chain of causation. If the intervening act is itself foreseeable—such as emergency responders causing incidental property damage while responding to an injury—then the defendant may still be held liable.

However, if the intervening act is extraordinary or unrelated, it may be deemed a superseding cause. In such cases, the law relieves the original actor of liability. For example, if a defendant leaves an obstacle on a sidewalk and a person trips but is then struck by lightning while lying injured on the ground, the lightning strike would almost certainly be viewed as a superseding cause. It is not the kind of consequence a reasonable person would foresee from failing to maintain a walkway.

The Role of Expert Testimony

Causation often requires expert testimony, particularly in personal injury cases involving medical complications or disputed mechanisms of harm. A plaintiff who alleges that a fall led to spinal damage must offer medical testimony establishing that the injury was caused by the fall, not by a preexisting condition or unrelated incident. In such cases, the plaintiff’s medical expert must offer a credible opinion that the injuries were caused to a reasonable degree of medical certainty by the defendant’s conduct.

The same need arises in cases involving construction defects, product failures, or professional malpractice. The connection between breach and injury must be explained in clear, logical terms that a jury can understand and rely upon. Mere speculation is insufficient. Courts routinely dismiss claims where the plaintiff cannot present reliable evidence on the issue of causation.

Causation as a Barrier to Recovery

Even when the defendant’s conduct appears plainly negligent, causation may present a barrier to recovery. This is especially true in cases involving multiple actors, preexisting conditions, or complex timelines. If the plaintiff cannot convincingly establish both actual and proximate cause, the negligence claim will not survive summary judgment.

The element of causation protects defendants from being held liable for every possible ripple effect of their conduct. At the same time, it ensures that plaintiffs bear the responsibility of linking the breach of duty directly to the harm they claim. It is not enough to show that something bad happened. The plaintiff must demonstrate that the incident occurred due to the defendant's actions, in a manner that the law recognizes as reasonably connected.

In the final post in this series, I will address the last required element of negligence, damages, and explain why the presence of actual, compensable harm is essential to any civil claim based on negligence.

For more information about your legal rights or to schedule a consultation, please contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at www.pjlesq.com, call 201-904-2211, or email info@pjlesq.com.

Contact us today to discuss your business or legal matter. Put our 20+ years of legal experience to work for you.

---

For detailed insights and legal assistance on topics discussed in this post, including litigation, contact the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont at our Bergen County Office. We're here to answer your questions and provide legal advice. Contact us at (201) 904-2211 or email us at  info@pjlesq.com.

Interested in More Legal Insights?

Explore our range of resources on business and legal matters. Subscribe to our podcast and YouTube channel for a wealth of information covering various business and legal topics. For specific inquiries or to discuss your legal matter with an attorney from our team, please email me directly at pl@pjlesq.com or call at (201) 904-2211. Your questions are important to us, and we look forward to providing the answers you need.

About Peter J. Lamont, Esq.

Peter J. Lamont is a nationally recognized attorney with significant experience in business, contract, litigation, and real estate law. With over two decades of legal practice, he has represented a wide array of businesses, including large international corporations. Peter is known for his practical legal and business advice, prioritizing efficient and cost-effective solutions for his clients.

Peter has an Avvo 10.0 Rating and has been acknowledged as one of America's Most Honored Lawyers since 2011. 201 Magazine and Lawyers of Distinction have also recognized him for being one of the top business and litigation attorneys in New Jersey. His commitment to his clients and the legal community is further evidenced by his active role as a speaker, lecturer, and published author in various legal and business publications.

As the founder of the Law Offices of Peter J. Lamont, Peter brings his Wall Street experience and client-focused approach to New Jersey, offering personalized legal services that align with each client's unique needs and goals​.

---

DISCLAIMERS: The contents of this website and post are intended to convey general information only and not to provide legal advice or opinions. The contents of this website and the posting and viewing of the information on this website should not be construed as, and should not be relied upon for, legal or tax advice in any particular circumstance or fact situation. Nothing on this website is an offer to represent you, and nothing on this website is intended to create an attorney‑client relationship. An attorney-client relationship may only be established through direct attorney‑to‑client communication that is confirmed by the execution of an engagement agreement.

As with any legal issue, it is important that you obtain competent legal counsel before making any decisions about how to respond to a subpoena or whether to challenge one, even if you believe that compliance is not required. Because each situation is different, it may be impossible for this article to address all issues raised by every situation encountered in responding to a subpoena. The information below can give you guidance regarding some common issues related to subpoenas, but you should consult with an attorney before taking any actions (or refraining from acts) based on these suggestions. This post will also focus on New Jersey law. If you receive a subpoena in a state other than New Jersey, you should immediately seek the advice of an attorney in your state, as certain rules differ in other states.

Disclaimer: Recognition by Legal Awards

The legal awards and recognitions mentioned above do not constitute an endorsement or guarantee of future performance. These honors reflect an attorney's past achievements and should not be considered as predictors of future results. They are not intended to compare one lawyer's services with those of other lawyers. The process for selecting an attorney for these awards can vary and may not include a review of the lawyer's competence in specific areas of practice. Potential clients should perform their own evaluation when seeking legal representation. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.