How to Prove “Proximate Causation” in Nevada Injury Cases

In Nevada, most personal injury lawsuits arising out of car accidents or slip-and-falls involve suing for negligence. You have to prove four “elements” to win a negligence case at trial:

1. The responsible party (“defendant”) had a duty of care towards you (“plaintiff”);
2. The defendant breached this duty of care;
3. The defendant’s breach of duty actually and proximately caused your injuries; and
4. You suffered compensable damages.¹

The element of “proximate cause” also goes by the term “legal cause.”² It is the linchpin of every negligence lawsuit because it links the defendant’s wrongful act to your injuries.

Although lawyers often use the words “causation” and “proximate cause” interchangeably, Nevada law actually requires proof of both actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause asks whether the defendant’s conduct produced the injury. Proximate cause asks whether the law should hold the defendant responsible for that injury.

In my experience, proximate cause is often where insurance companies focus their defense. They rarely admit that their insured caused an accident. Instead, they argue that someone else caused the injury, that the plaintiff’s medical problems existed beforehand, or that an unrelated event broke the chain of causation.

Much of my job is gathering the medical records, witness testimony, photographs, and expert opinions needed to show that the defendant’s negligence was a legal cause of my client’s injuries.

 

“Proximate Cause” Meaning

Proximate cause exists when:

1. Your injury was the natural and probable result of the defendant’s breach of duty, and
2. The general type of harm was reasonably foreseeable in light of the circumstances.³

Example: Ben is driving drunk and has propane in his trunk. Ben hits a cyclist, causing the propane to explode and burn the cyclist. Although the propane was the cause of the burns, it was reasonably foreseeable that Ben’s drunk driving would set into motion the events that caused the burn and the injuries that resulted from it. Therefore, Ben’s drunk driving was a proximate cause of the cyclist’s injuries.

By contrast, if Ben had been driving carefully and soberly, and an intoxicated cyclist unexpectedly swerved into Ben’s vehicle, then Ben’s conduct would not be the proximate cause of the cyclist’s injuries. Careful driving does not naturally lead to injuries, and having a cyclist swerve into a safe driver is not reasonably foreseeable.

In short, proximate cause limits liability to harms that are sufficiently connected to the defendant’s negligence.

Proximate Cause vs. Actual Cause

To prevail in a negligence claim in Nevada, you must prove both:

• Actual cause (cause in fact) and
• Proximate cause (legal cause).

Actual cause asks whether the defendant’s conduct actually produced the injury.⁴

If the defendant’s wrongful act was the only cause of your injury, actual cause exists if the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s wrongful act.⁵ Meanwhile, when two or more independent negligent acts each would have been sufficient to cause the injury, Nevada applies the “substantial factor test” instead of relying solely on the traditional “but-for” test.⁶

Example: If a car strikes a pedestrian lawfully crossing the street, the driver’s actions constitute the actual cause of the accident. The pedestrian would not have been injured “but for” the car striking it. Now Suppose Driver A and Driver B both negligently collide with the pedestrian at virtually the same moment, and either impact alone would have caused the pedestrian’s injuries. Under those circumstances, each driver’s negligence may still be considered a substantial factor in causing the harm.⁷

Proximate cause is a separate requirement. It asks whether the injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct and whether the connection between the conduct and the injury is close enough that the law will impose liability. In the above example, it is reasonably foreseeable that negligently driving through an occupied crosswalk would injure a pedestrian.

Proving Proximate Causation

The best methods of proving proximate causation turn on

• the unique facts of the case and
• the available evidence.

For example, if you were injured in a slip-and-fall accident in a casino, valuable evidence for proving proximate causation would include:

• surveillance video of you walking responsibly and slipping anyway;
• eyewitnesses who saw the floor was wet at no fault of you;
• expert testimony that your shoes did not cause the accident;
• expert medical testimony that your injury was indicative of a slip-and-fall; and
• your medical records before and after the accident.

Unlike in criminal cases, you do not have to prove your personal injury case beyond a reasonable doubt. Instead, you have to prove the case by a preponderance of the evidence.

By a preponderance of the evidence is a much lower standard of proof than beyond a reasonable doubt. It means that it is more likely than not that the defendant is liable.⁸

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I recover compensation if the other person’s negligence was only one of several causes of my injury?

Yes. Nevada law does not require the defendant’s negligence to be the only cause of your injury. A defendant may still be legally responsible if their negligence was an actual and proximate cause of your injuries, even if another person’s negligence also contributed.

In my experience, insurance companies often try to blame someone else—or even the injured person—to argue that their insured was not really responsible. I spend a great deal of time gathering evidence that shows how the defendant’s conduct fits into the chain of events. In many cases, proving that multiple causes existed does not defeat a claim; it simply requires a careful explanation of how each contributed.

What is the difference between actual cause and proximate cause?

Actual cause (sometimes called “cause in fact”) asks whether the injury would have happened “but for” the defendant’s conduct. Proximate cause asks whether the injury was a reasonably foreseeable result of that conduct and whether it is fair to hold the defendant legally responsible.

I often explain to clients that simply proving someone made a mistake is not enough. You also have to connect that mistake to the injury in a way that makes legal sense. Much of my job involves building that narrative with medical records, witness testimony, photographs, and expert opinions.

Does Nevada require me to prove that my injuries were foreseeable?

Generally, yes. Nevada courts use foreseeability as part of the proximate cause analysis. The exact manner in which the injury occurred need not be foreseeable, but the general type of harm ordinarily must be.

In my experience, foreseeability is frequently the focus of settlement negotiations. Defendants sometimes argue that what happened was a bizarre accident no one could have anticipated. I look closely at prior incidents, industry standards, safety rules, and common experience to demonstrate why the injury was actually foreseeable.

Can an insurance company argue that something else caused my injuries?

Yes. Defendants and insurers commonly argue that a preexisting medical condition, a prior accident, a later accident, or an unrelated event caused your injuries instead of the incident at issue. It is then up to the evidence to establish the connection between the accident and your damages.

I regularly see insurers comb through years of medical records looking for anything they can blame instead of the accident. That is why I work closely with treating physicians and, when necessary, medical experts to distinguish old conditions from new injuries or aggravations caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Does a preexisting injury prevent me from proving proximate cause?

No. A preexisting condition does not bar recovery if the defendant’s negligence aggravated or worsened that condition. Under Nevada law, a negligent party generally takes the injured person as they find them and may be responsible for additional harm they caused.

Many of my clients worry that an old back injury or prior surgery means they have no case. In reality, some of the strongest cases involve defendants who significantly worsened an existing condition. The key is obtaining medical evidence that clearly distinguishes the prior condition from the new harm.

Can I still prove proximate cause if there was a delay before my symptoms appeared?

Yes. Some injuries, including traumatic brain injuries, soft-tissue injuries, spinal injuries, and psychological conditions, do not always produce immediate symptoms. A delay does not automatically defeat proximate cause, although medical evidence becomes especially important.

I have represented many clients who initially believed they were “fine” after an accident only to develop significant symptoms days or weeks later. I encourage people to seek medical evaluation as soon as symptoms appear because timely documentation often makes it much easier to establish the causal connection.

It is also important to seek legal counsel right away because there is a deadline to sue. In Nevada, you typically have only a two-year statute of limitations after the accident occurs to seek damages. If you wait too long, your case becomes moot.

Do I need an expert witness to prove proximate cause?

Not always. Straightforward cases may be proven through ordinary evidence and witness testimony. However, expert testimony is often necessary when the causal relationship involves complicated medical issues, engineering questions, product defects, or scientific matters beyond the understanding of an average juror.

In my experience, knowing when to retain an expert can dramatically affect the outcome of a case. I evaluate early whether physicians, accident reconstructionists, engineers, economists, or other specialists will help explain the connection between the defendant’s conduct and my client’s injuries.

What evidence is most helpful for proving proximate cause?

Medical records, treating physician opinions, accident reports, photographs, surveillance footage, witness statements, expert testimony, employment records, and contemporaneous documentation can all help establish proximate cause. The stronger the evidence linking the accident to the injuries, the stronger the claim.

One thing I have learned is that small pieces of evidence often become critical months later. A photograph taken immediately after the accident, a text message describing pain, or a prompt medical visit can ultimately help persuade an insurer or jury that the injuries were caused by the defendant’s negligence.

Can the defendant argue that my own negligence breaks proximate cause?

Not necessarily. Nevada follows a modified comparative negligence system. If both parties were negligent, the plaintiff may still recover damages so long as the plaintiff’s negligence was not greater than the combined negligence of the defendants, although any recovery will generally be reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.

I frequently see insurance companies try to blur the line between comparative negligence and proximate cause. Even if a client made a mistake, that does not automatically eliminate the defendant’s responsibility. A careful investigation often shows that the defendant’s negligence remained a substantial legal cause of the injuries despite the plaintiff’s own conduct.

Can a defendant escape liability because another event happened after the accident?

Sometimes. An independent, unforeseeable intervening or superseding cause may relieve a defendant of liability if it breaks the chain of proximate causation. However, not every later event qualifies, and foreseeable intervening events generally do not eliminate liability.

In my experience, defendants often characterize ordinary events as “superseding causes” when they are nothing of the sort. I carefully analyze the timeline and applicable Nevada law to determine whether the later event truly broke the chain of causation or was simply another foreseeable consequence of the original negligence.

---

Legal References