California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Mattos-Yanez v. Dover, F073294 (Cal. App. 2017):
There are two aspects to proximate causation: " 'whether the defendant's conduct was the "cause in fact" of the injury; and, if so, whether as a matter of social policy the defendant should be held legally responsible for the injury.' " (Kumaraperu v. Feldsted (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 60, 68 (Kumaraperu).) The first aspect is determinative here.
"Cause in fact" asks whether the defendant's conduct was the " 'necessary antecedent' " to the injury, without which no injury would have occurred. (Maupin v. Widling (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 568, 573.) That is, the defendant's conduct must be a
Page 11
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.