The Duty and Proximate Causation Elements in Negligence Actions
A negligence action has four elements a plaintiff must prove: “(1) a duty by defendant to conform to a certain standard of conduct; (2) a breach by defendant of that duty; (3) a causal connection between the breach and injury to plaintiff; and (4) loss or damage to plaintiff.” Las Olas Holding Co. v. Demella, 228 So.3d 97, 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (quotation omitted). The third element, causal connection, refers to proximate causation. See id. at 106.
A recent case discusses both the duty element (a question of law) and proximate causation element (a question of fact) with notable analysis for those prosecuting and defending negligence claims. Both elements are critical to proving a negligence claim.
“The duty element of negligence focuses on whether the defendant’s conduct foreseeably created a broader ‘zone of risk’ that poses a general threat of harm to others.” It is the “minimal threshold legal requirement for opening the courthouse doors.” “Where a defendant’s conduct creates a foreseeable zone of risk, the law generally will recognize a duty placed upon defendant either to lessen the risk or see that sufficient precautions are taken to protect others from the harm that the risk poses.” “[A]s the risk grows greater, so does the duty, because the risk to be perceived defines the duty that must be undertaken.”
The statute books and case law . . . are not required to catalog and expressly proscribe every conceivable risk in order for it to give rise to a duty of care. Rather, each defendant who creates a risk is required to exercise prudent foresight whenever others may be injured as a result.
“As to duty, the proper inquiry for the reviewing appellate court is whether the defendant’s conduct created a foreseeable zone of risk, not whether the defendant could foresee the specific injury that actually occurred.”
As to proximate cause, “foreseeability is concerned with the specific, narrow factual details of the case, not with the broader zone of risk the defendant created.” Proximate cause focuses on “whether and to what extent the defendant’s conduct foreseeably and substantially caused the specific injury that actually occurred.” “However, . . . it is immaterial that the defendant could not foresee the precise manner in which the injury occurred or its exact extent.” “[A]n injury caused by a freakish and improbable chain of events would not be ‘proximate’ precisely because it is unquestionably unforeseeable, even where the injury may have arisen from a zone of risk.” “The law does not impose liability for freak injuries that were utterly unpredictable in light of common human experience
Generally, “foreseeability as it relates to proximate causation . . . must be left to the fact-finder to resolve.” “Thus, where reasonable persons could differ as to whether the facts establish proximate causation — i.e., whether the specific injury was genuinely foreseeable or merely an improbable freak [event] — then the resolution of the issue must be left to the fact-finder.” “The judge is free to take this matter from the fact-finder only where the facts are unequivocal, such as where the evidence supports no more than a single reasonable inference.”
Bartley Investments, Ltd. v. Mendendez, 50 Fla.L.Weekly D2676a (Fla. 2d DCA 2025) (internal citations omitted).
Please contact David Adelstein at dadelstein@gmail.com or (954) 361-4720 if you have questions or would like more information regarding this article. You can follow David Adelstein on Twitter @DavidAdelstein1.
