These two concepts play a crucial role in tort law. Generally speaking, if the consequence of an act or omission by one party results in injury to second party, the significant query is was the fact that an injury to the second party was likely to follow the act of the first party FORESEEABLE? If it was, and the first party proceeded nevertheless, then the first party is negligent.
If the act/omission of the first party caused the injury, he is liable for the damages caused...in most cases. The exceptions are brought about by the lack of proximate cause.
Causation is an issue that must be proved by the injured party. Causation is not to be confused with PROXIMATE CAUSE. Example: if a train hits a truck crossing its tracks AND as a result of the collision the hazardous contents of the truck explode AND the explosion frightens a horse grazing nearby AND the horse begins to gallop out of control for 3 miles AND then the runaway horse runs down a youngster, resulting in injuries, THE COLLISION OF THE TRAIN AND THE TRUCK ARE CLEARLY THE CAUSE OF THE INJURIES TO THE CHILD. But there is NO PROXIMATE CAUSE and, therefore, NO LIABILITY for the injuries to the child.
In order for party No.1 to be liable to party No.2, there must be proximate causation between the act/omission of party No.1 and the injury to party No. 2; simple causation is insufficient.
WHY?
This is where the concepts of PROXIMATE CAUSE and FORESEEABILITY cross paths. At this point, it is important to remember NOT to think of proximate causation as causation at all, but as a separate and distinct legal concept. Now, let us return to foreseeability and examine its role in this equation.
WHAT IS FORESEEABILITY?
A process which - from the vantage point of a reasonable and prudent person - once started, continues in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, and produces an injury. The keys here are the following words/phrases:
1. reasonable and prudent person (i.e. if a reasonable and prudent person would NOT think that act A is likely to result in act B - the injury - then it's not foreseeable)
2. natural and continuous sequence (i.e. a ball set into motion must continue without an outside force altering its course or speed; if such force intervenes, then whatever happens was not foreseeable by the person setting the ball in motion)
To put in plain language, if something occurs which is SO REMOTE, SO UNUSUAL, SO UNEXPECTED, SO FAR-FETCHED as to cause a reasonable and prudent person to throw up his hands in disbelief at the outcome, then the sequence of events - started with the "tortious act" and ending in injury - was not foreseeable.
And now, hold onto your hat: if the sequence was not foreseeable, there is no proximate cause, and thus NO LIABILITY.
SO, WHAT IS PROXIMATE CAUSE? It is not an issue of causation at all; it is a legal concept that says that if a sequence of events (from the tortious act to injury) are not foreseeable, then there is no proximate cause. Actual cause, yes....proximate cause, no. This is how "foreseeability" and "proximate cause" are connected.
To test this assertion on our above-mentioned example: there is proximate cause in the following situations:
The truck driver's tortious act caused, AND PROXIMATELY CAUSED, injuries to
a. anyone on the train,
b. anyone within a reasonable distance from the explosion
c. the youngster, if the youngster in question was actually riding the horse when the horse became wild from the explosion, and was thrown and injured
d. anyone the horse ran down within a reasonable distance of where he was grazing (i.e. 500 meters is "reasonable", 5 km is not).
