Holding another party liable for your personal injury requires you to prove that they were negligent in or “caused” the accident. But there are a few different types of causal connections in accident cases that you should be aware of before proceeding. Knowing the difference between actual cause vs. proximate cause may help you understand the types of evidence you might need to prove negligence and seek compensation.
Yale Haymond Law PLLC represents personal injury cases in the greater Charlotte, NC, area and can help you understand this important distinction.
What Is Actual Cause in Personal Injury Claims?
In a personal injury case, “actual cause” refers to the actual action that caused the accident. You might also see this referred to as “factual cause” or “cause-in-fact.”
The actual cause of a car accident might have been a driver running a stop sign and hitting your vehicle. Meanwhile, the actual cause of a slip-and-fall incident might have been a store owner’s failure to clean up a spill.
Proving actual cause can help support a personal injury claim. But actual cause does not always mean proximate cause, which is often required to establish legal liability.
What Is Proximate Cause in Personal Injury Claims?
Proximate cause is considered the legal cause of the injury and determines whether the defendant should be held responsible. It involves a level of foreseeability. In other words: Was the chain of events leading to the injury foreseeable?
Perhaps a driver’s tire blew out due to a manufacturing defect, leading them to collide with another vehicle. While the actual cause of the accident might have been the driver’s failure to control the vehicle, the proximate cause is the faulty tire, which the manufacturer might be liable for instead.
In the case of a property owner failing to clean up a spill, there was likely a foreseeable chain of events between leaving the spill and the occurrence of a serious injury. The property owner could have expected an accident to happen, establishing proximate cause.
How To Prove Actual and Proximate Cause Under North Carolina Negligence Law
In a personal injury case, you generally need to prove proximate cause to hold a party legally liable. Establishing actual cause can also be helpful, but it is not always necessary.
The “but for” test is commonly used to determine actual cause. It seeks to determine whether the injury would not have happened “but for” the defendant’s negligent action or omission. For example, would the slip and fall have occurred had the store owner not failed to clean up the spill?
Establishing that the injury was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s actions can help prove proximate cause, moving beyond the initial, direct cause of the accident to demonstrate legal liability.
Seek Legal Assistance in Determining Causation
Understanding the difference between actual cause vs. proximate cause can be tricky. If you still aren’t clear on these terms, an experienced personal injury attorney can help you understand them in relation to your case.
Call Yale Haymond Law PLLC today at 704-800-4357 to schedule a consultation, then learn more about North Carolina’s contributory negligence rule.
