Legal Definitions - negative causation

Negative causation refers to a legal principle used to establish a causal link between a defendant's inaction or failure to perform a duty, and the resulting harm or injury suffered by the plaintiff. Instead of proving that a specific action directly *caused* an event, negative causation demonstrates that the harm would *not* have occurred if the defendant had taken the appropriate, required action or had refrained from a prohibited inaction.

Essentially, it argues that the absence of a proper intervention or the presence of a negligent omission led directly to the negative outcome. It's often framed as proving that "but for" the defendant's failure to act, the injury would have been avoided.

• Example 1: Medical Negligence

  A patient visits their doctor complaining of persistent chest pain. The doctor, despite clear guidelines and the patient's symptoms, fails to order an electrocardiogram (ECG) or refer the patient to a cardiologist. A week later, the patient suffers a severe heart attack, which could have been prevented or mitigated if the underlying heart condition had been diagnosed and treated promptly. In this scenario, the patient's legal team might argue negative causation, asserting that the heart attack would *not* have occurred, or would have been significantly less severe, *but for* the doctor's omission in failing to perform the necessary diagnostic tests.

• Example 2: Premises Liability

  A grocery store employee notices a large puddle of spilled liquid in an aisle but gets distracted and fails to place a "wet floor" sign or clean up the spill for over an hour. During this time, a customer walks through the aisle, slips on the puddle, and breaks their wrist. The customer could argue negative causation, contending that their injury would *not* have happened *but for* the store's failure to promptly address the known hazard or warn patrons about it. The store's inaction directly led to the preventable accident.

• Example 3: Product Liability (Failure to Warn)

  A manufacturer produces a new kitchen appliance that generates significant heat during operation, posing a burn risk if handled incorrectly immediately after use. However, the manufacturer fails to include any warning labels or instructions advising users to let the appliance cool down before touching certain parts. A consumer, unaware of the risk, attempts to clean the appliance right after using it and suffers a severe burn. The consumer could claim negative causation, arguing that the burn injury would *not* have occurred *but for* the manufacturer's omission of a crucial safety warning, which would have informed them of the danger and how to avoid it.