The Unsuspecting Defendant and Proximate Cause

In cases where a Defendant may have acted negligently, but it is unclear whether that negligence was the cause of the injury requires a review of proximate cause. Proximate cause is a mix of fact and foreseeability. See Lindsey v. Bell South Telecommunications, Inc., 943 So.2d. 963, 965) (Fla. 4th DCA 2006). It is a “question of fact concerned with ‘whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.’” Id. quoting McCain v. Florida Power Corp.¸593 So.2d 500, 502 (Fla. 1992). Foreseeability depends upon an analysis of whether defendant’s conduct created a larger “zone of risk.” See McCain at 502. The Florida supreme court further explains:

It might seem theoretically more appealing to confine all questions of foreseeability within either the element of duty or the element of proximate causation. However, precedent, public policy, and common sense dictate that this is not possible. Foreseeability clearly is crucial in defining the scope of the general duty placed on every person to avoid negligent acts or omissions. Florida, like other jurisdictions, recognizes that a legal duty will arise whenever a human endeavor creates a generalized and foreseeable risk of harming others. Id at 503. 

An injury that was caused by an improbable chain of events would not be “proximate” because it is unquestionably unforeseeable, even where the death or injury may have resulted from a “zone of risk.” Id. When reviewing proximate cause, it is important to look at whether that Defendant could have anticipated that this injury would have been a result of his actions or if other intervening forces were needed for the injury to have occurred.