What Is Proximate Cause? Definition, Legal Meaning, and Examples

When people first talk to a lawyer after a crash or serious injury, they usually focus on what happened in the moment: who ran the red light, who failed to shovel the ice, which product malfunctioned. But the legal system goes a step further. To recover compensation in a negligence case, it isn’t enough to show that someone acted carelessly and that you were hurt. You also have to show that the defendant’s conduct was a proximate cause of your injuries, meaning the law recognizes it as a legally responsible link in the chain of events.

In serious cases, working with an experienced Colorado personal injury lawyer often becomes the difference between an insurer dismissing your claim as “too indirect” and a jury understanding exactly why the law should hold the at-fault party accountable. Below, Boesen Law draws on years of experience to explain how proximate cause works in the state’s negligence law, how it differs from cause in fact, and how it plays out in real accident scenarios.

How Proximate Cause Fits Into A Colorado Negligence Claim

Every negligence case has four core elements: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Proximate cause lives inside the causation element and involves asking a specific question: even if the defendant’s conduct contributed to the chain of events, is it fair and legally appropriate to hold them responsible for this particular harm?

In practical terms, proximate cause:

• Filters out extremely remote or coincidental links in the chain of events.
• Focuses on the kinds of harm that made the conduct risky to begin with.
• Gives juries a framework to decide whether the defendant’s actions are close enough to the injury to justify liability.

For answers to your questions, call:
(303) 999-9999

Proximate Cause vs. Actual Cause

In negligence cases, we can distinguish between two causation layers:

Cause in fact (actual cause): Would the injury have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct? If the answer is no, the conduct is a factual cause. If a driver runs a red light and slams into a cyclist, it is easy to say that but for the driver running the light, the cyclist would not have been injured.

Proximate cause (legal cause): Proximate cause assumes there is some factual connection and then asks whether the law should treat this connection as close enough, given fairness and foreseeability. Was the defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in bringing about the harm? Was that harm a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the risk created?

You can think of cause in fact as the science of causation, and proximate cause as the policy and fairness filter. Many events might be part of the story that led to an injury, but only some become legally recognized causes.

Foreseeability, Intervening Causes, And The Scope Of Liability

Foreseeability is at the center of proximate cause analysis in Colorado, and it includes considering the following:

• Natural and probable sequence: The injury must follow from the defendant’s conduct in a way that feels like a natural development, not a bizarre coincidence.
• Intervening vs. superseding causes: Later events can enter the chain. Some are foreseeable and do not cut off liability (for example, negligent medical care after a car accident). Others are so unexpected that they are treated as new, superseding causes that relieve the original actor of responsibility.
• Scope of the risk: The law asks whether the injury results from the same general kind of risk that made the conduct dangerous. If a speeding driver hits a pedestrian when they lose control, that is within the obvious risk of speeding. If something completely unrelated happens many steps later, the law may say the chain has stretched too far.

Everyday Examples Of Proximate Cause In Colorado Accident Cases

Proximate cause is about whether the harm was reasonably foreseeable, given the risk the defendant created. Here are some concrete examples to help clarify when proximate cause is met and when insurers might challenge it:

Example 1: Rear-End Crash At An Intersection

A driver looks down at their phone, doesn’t notice traffic slowing for a yellow light, and crashes into the back of your vehicle. You end up with a neck injury and back pain that requires physical therapy.

• The driver’s distraction is a cause in fact of your injuries, because but for that inattention, the crash would not have occurred.
• It is also a proximate cause, because rear-end collisions and resulting soft-tissue injuries are exactly the kind of harm that makes distracted driving dangerous.

Here, the proximate cause is usually straightforward. The main disputes focus on the extent of injury, pre-existing conditions, and damages.

Example 2: Multi-Car Pileup After A Sudden Stop

A truck driver is following too closely on an icy highway. They fail to slow down, hit the car in front of them, and that impact pushes the first car into a third vehicle. You are in the third car and end up with a traumatic brain injury. 

Even though the truck never physically touched your car, the law can treat the truck driver’s negligence as a proximate cause if the chain of collisions unfolded in a natural, continuous sequence, and if multi-vehicle crashes are a foreseeable result of tailgating and ignoring road conditions.

The fact that other drivers were involved does not automatically break the chain of causation. Instead, the jury decides whether each driver’s conduct was a proximate cause and how to apportion fault between them.

Example 3: Negligent Security And Third-Party Crime

In a premises liability case, a landlord ignores repeated complaints about broken locks and poor lighting in a parking lot. A tenant is later assaulted in that lot. Here, Colorado courts should look carefully at whether the crime was a foreseeable risk of the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable security. 

If assaults were a predictable risk in that area, a jury can find that the landlord’s negligence remains a proximate cause of the tenant’s injuries (even though a third party committed the actual attack).

Multiple Defendants, Comparative Fault, And Proximate Cause

Colorado’s civil liability statutes recognize that several people can share responsibility for a single injury. According to C.R.S. 13-21-111, comparative negligence is used to reduce a plaintiff’s damages in proportion to their share of fault. If a jury finds that you were partially negligent, but less negligent than the defendant, you can still recover compensation, with your award reduced according to your percentage of fault. In a case with multiple liable parties:

• The jury must decide whether each party’s conduct was a proximate cause of the injury.
• The jury then assigns percentages of negligence among those whose conduct met that standard.

Additionally, it’s important to keep the general statute of limitations in mind: C.R.S. 13-80-102 sets deadlines for bringing many civil claims, including those arising from injuries. If you wait too long, you might never reach the stage where a jury can evaluate proximate cause at all, because your claim will be barred as untimely. That’s why early legal intervention is essential after an accident.

Evidence That Helps Prove Proximate Cause

Because proximate cause is often a question for the jury, the quality and clarity of your evidence matter. Lawyers work to connect the dots between the defendant’s conduct and the harm you suffered, using evidence such as:

• Accident reconstruction and technical analysis: Skid marks, vehicle damage patterns, event data recorder downloads, and expert modeling of how a crash unfolded.
• Medical records and expert opinions: Treating physicians and medical experts can explain how the forces involved in the incident caused specific injuries, and how those injuries match the mechanism of harm you describe.
• Witness testimony and surveillance footage: Neutral observers and video recordings can show the sequence of events, helping jurors visualize how one negligent act led to the injury.
• Prior complaints and incident history: In premises or product cases, a history of similar accidents or complaints can demonstrate that the harm you suffered was a foreseeable outcome of the defendant’s choices.
• Your own account of the aftermath: Clear, consistent testimony about what happened immediately after the incident, how your symptoms developed, and what changed in your day-to-day life helps jurors connect the event to your damages.

Talk To Boesen Law About Proximate Cause In Your Colorado Injury Case

Proximate cause can be the deciding factor in a Colorado injury case. Two people might agree on the basic facts, yet reach very different conclusions about whether the defendant should be legally responsible for the outcome. Insurance companies understand that dynamic and frequently argue that another driver, a later medical issue, or your own actions were the true cause of your injuries.

Working with a law firm that understands Colorado negligence law and the nuances of proximate cause can help level the playing field. At Boesen Law, our attorneys investigate how an accident unfolded, consult with experts when needed, and build clear, fact-driven arguments showing why the law should treat the defendant’s conduct as a proximate cause of your harm.

If you are unsure whether your situation meets the causation requirements for a negligence claim, a conversation with Boesen Law can help you understand your options. During a free consultation, we review what happened and outline potential next steps if you choose to move forward. Contact us today to speak with a member of our team—there are no fees unless we win your case.

Call (303) 999-9999 or complete a Free Case Evaluation form