CAUSA PROXIMA NON REMOTA SPEC. TATUR (Lat.). The direct and not the re mote cause is considered.
In many cases important questions arise as to which, in the chain of acts tending to the production of a given state of things, is to be considered the responsihle cause. It is not merely distance of place or of caus ation that renders a cause remote. The cause nearest in the order of causation, without any efficient concurring cause to produce the result, may be considered the direct cause. 'In the course of decisions of cases in which it is necessary, to determine which of several causes is so far respon sible for the happening of the act or injury complained of, what is known as the doc trine of proximate cause is constantly re sorted to in order to ascertain whether the act, omission, or negligence of the person Whom it is sought to hold liable was in law and in fact responsible for the result which is the foundation of the action.
The rule was formulated by Bacon, and his comment on it is often cited: "It were infinite for the law to judge the cause of causes, and their impulsions one of another: therefore it contenteth itself with the im mediate cay.se ; and judgeth of acts by that, without looking to any further degree;" Max. Reg. 1. Its subsequent development has resulted rather in its application to new conditions than in ,deviation from the prin ciple as originally stated.. Proximate cause, it may be generally stated, is such adequate and efficient cause as, in the natural order of events, and under the particular circum stances surrounding the case, would neces sarily produce the event ; and this having been discovered, is to be deemed the true cause, unless some new cause not incidental to, but independent of, the first, shall be found to intervene between and the first. Sh. & Redf. Neg. § 10; Marble v. City of Worcester, 4 Gray (Mass.) 412; Story, J., in Peters v. Ins. Co., 14 Pet. (U. S.) 99, 10 L. Ed. 371; Alexander v. Town of New Castle, 115 Ind. 51, 17 N. E. 200; State v. R. R-, 52 N. H. 528; Webb's Poll. Torts 29. It is a cause which in natural sequence, undisturbed by any independent cause, produces the result complained of; Behling v. Pipe Lines, 160
Pa. 359, 28 Atl. 777, 40 Am. St. Rep. 724; Milwaukee & St. P. R. Co. v. Kellogg, 94 U. S. 469, 24 L. Ed. 256; Putnam v. R. Co., 55 N. Y. 108, 14 Am. Rep. 190 ; Taylor v. Bald win, 78 Cal. 517, 21 Pac. 124 ; and the result must be the natural and probable conse quence such as ought to have been fore seen as likely to flow from the act com plained Of ; Ewing v. R. Co., 147 Pa. 44, 23 AU. 340, 14 L. R. A. 666, 30 Am. St. Rep. 709; McDonald v. Snelling, 14 Allen (Mass.) 290, 92 Am. Dec. 768; Pilmer v. Traction Co., 14 Ida. 327, 94 Pac. 432, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 254, 125 Am. St. Rep. 161; Kreigh v. West inghouse, Church, Kerr & Co., 152 Fed. 120, 81 C. 0. A. 338, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 684.
Two elementa go to make up ,proximate cause: 1. The act must be the efficient cause of the injury ; 2. The result must be one which might reasonably have been antici pated when the negligent act was commit ted; Goocllander Mill Co. v. Oil Co., 63 Fed. 400, 11 C. C. A. 253, 27 L. R. A. 583; Cole v. Say. & Loan Soc., 124 Fed. 113, 59 C. C. A. 593, 63 L. R. A. 416; Kreigh v. Church, 152 Fed. 120; 81 C. C. A. 338, 11 L. R. A. (N. S.) 684; Teis v. Min. Co., 158 Fed. 260, 85 C. C. A. 478, 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 893; Hoag v. R. Co., 85 Pa. 293, 27 Am. Rep. 653 ; Hartman v. Clarke, 104 App. Div. 62, 93 N. Y. Supp. 314 ; Seith v. Electric Co., 241 HI. 252, 89 N. E. 425, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 978, 132 Am. St. Rep. 204.
From a legal point of view it is said to be of two kinds: 1. As in insurance cases ; 2. Responsibility for a wrongful act, whether iu tort or contract; 15 Harv. L. Rev. 566, where it is said: "The fundamental differ ence between these classes is that in the former investigation ceases when the near est cause adequate to produce the result in question has been discovered, while in the latter the object is to connect the circum stances which are the subject of the action with a responsible human will." id.; see Gilson v. Canal Co., 36 Am. St. Rep. 807, note.