The Different Types of “Cause” in a Georgia Car Accident Lawsuit

When pursuing a car accident lawsuit, victims must establish “causation.” This is one of the four elements of negligence. Within the broad category of causation lie concepts such as factual cause, proximate cause, intervening cause, and superseding cause. What do all of these terms actually mean? Fortunately, car accident victims in Georgia do not need to become legal scholars while pursuing compensation, and they can simply rely on their attorneys to address these complex concepts.

Factual Cause vs. Proximate Cause 

Factual cause and proximate cause are two of the most important concepts to understand when proving causation, as car accident victims must establish both in order to recover compensation in Georgia. Factual cause is relatively straightforward because it examines the physical factors that triggered the auto collision.

For example, a car might have rear-ended another vehicle. If the rear driver had not struck the front vehicle, the injuries would not have occurred. This is factual cause. The only problem is that one could theoretically keep going back in time, making increasingly ridiculous legal arguments under this doctrine. For example, someone might argue that the accident would not have occurred if the rear driver’s parents had not given birth to him.

Proximate cause eliminates these arguments by ruling out any stretch of time with considerable unpredictability. If you think of time as a series of branching decisions and possible pathways, proximate cause goes back to the last “fork in the road” that led directly to the accident. This is why someone’s liability may fade away after a certain amount of time has passed.

For example, the front driver might have exited their vehicle after the rear-ender. Over the next 30 minutes, the two motorists might have exchanged insurance information, taken photographs, and waited for help. If a semi-truck subsequently approaches and strikes the front driver while they are leaning against their vehicle, the passage of time creates too many foreseeable possibilities for the rear driver to be directly responsible for the fatality.

Now consider a situation in which the rear-ender caused the front vehicle to burst into flames. Facing this sudden and dangerous situation, the front driver may have had no choice but to throw open their car door and dive out of their vehicle. If a semi-truck immediately runs over the driver as they lay on the roadway, one might use the doctrine of “concurrent cause” to argue that the initial rear-ender caused the subsequent, fatal semi-truck impact.

Can a Georgia Car Accident Lawyer Help Me?

Your Georgia car accident lawyer can explain concurrent cause, proximate cause, and related concepts in more detail. Of course, you do not actually need to gain a solid understanding of these concepts in order to pursue compensation. Instead, you can simply rely on your attorney to address these issues and make solid legal arguments on your behalf. Contact Morain & Buckelew, PLLC at (404) 448-3146 to learn more about the next potential steps.

Source: 

insuranceopedia.com/definition/1306/concurrent-causation