Cause in fact asks whether the defendant's conduct actually produced the harm as a matter of physical or logical connection. It is established through the but-for test or, where that fails, substantial factor analysis.
Proximate cause separately limits liability among factual causes.
Alternative Names:
Actual Cause, Factual Causation
Why it Matters?
Separating the two inquiries clarifies analysis that frequently blurs, since a defendant may be a cause in fact of harm that proximate cause principles nonetheless place outside its responsibility. Arguing both is standard: that the conduct did not actually produce the harm, and alternatively that the connection is too attenuated for liability. Conflating them weakens both arguments.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
How does cause in fact differ from proximate cause?
Should both be argued?
