Page |1

Legal language Project

On
Topic: In Jure Non Remota
Causa Sed Proxima Spectatur

Submitted to
Dr. Sanjay Pandey

Submitted by:

Student Details
Name : Helik Soni
Roll No : 1007al0027
Batch : 2020-2025
Section : A
 Page |2

In Jure Non Remota

Causa Sed Proxima Spectatur
In  jure  non  remota  causa,  sed  proxima  spectatur.  In  law  the  proximate,  and  not  the  r
emote  cause,  is  to  be  looked  to

Contents
MEANING..............................................................................................................................................2
QUESTION ARISES..................................................................................................................................2
Foreseeability and Proximate Cause......................................................................................................2
Test of Foreseeability........................................................................................................................3
What is Foreseeability?.................................................................................................................3
Proximate Cause................................................................................................................................3
Unforeseeable Type of Harm.................................................................................................................4
Unforeseeable Manner of Harm............................................................................................................4
Other examples of superseding causes that are usually deemed unforeseeable:.............................4
Unforeseeable Extent of Harm/ Eggshell Skull Principle........................................................................4
ICICI Bank vs Shanti Devi Sharma...........................................................................................................5
Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................5
 Page |3

MEANING

 Literal meaning:- In law not the remote but the proximate cause is looked at.

 The meaning of the maxim is explained by Bacon in the following manner, he said "It
were infinite for the law to consider the cause of causes, and the impulse one from
another, therefore it contenth itself with the immediate cause; and judgeth of
acts by that without looking to any other decree."

 The law takes cognizance only of such acts of which the experience of society has
shown to be dangerous.

 The principles of proximate cause determine whether a given person has or has not
produced the cause of a given injury.

 The principles of legal accountability determine whether or not compensation and

punishment shall follow the production of such a cause. It is only after causation has
been established that accountability is considered.

 Basically, It is a maxim which simply means that in law not the remote but the
proximate cause is looked at. The Maxim, In Jure, Non Remota Causa, Sed Proxima
Spectatur does not, however, apply to any transaction originally founded in fraud and
much less in Proved crime, for the law will look to the corrupt beginning and consider
it as one entire act.’ 1

QUESTION ARISES

When it has been found that an act or omission is a legal cause of a given injury, the next question is
this: Is the act or omission a proximate cause of the injury? And The rule to determine that is: Causa
proxima, non remota spectatur.

1. Meaning of the rule?

2. Reason of the rule?

1 referred from https://lawtimesjournal.in/in-jure-non-remota-causa-sed-proxima-spectatur/

 Page |4

Foreseeability and Proximate Cause

The law limits the scope of liability based upon the foreseeability of the type of the harm and
the manner of the harm, but not the extent of the harm.

Test of Foreseeability

What is Foreseeability?  
Before you can recover compensation for an accident, you or your lawyer will need to
establish that the defendant’s negligence was the proximate cause of your injury, not only the
actual cause. Furthermore, in many personal injury cases, you or your lawyer will need to
prove foreseeability to hold the defendant liable. You must have evidence that the defendant
foresaw or reasonably should have foreseen your injury occurring, yet failed to take steps to
prevent the damage.

Foreseeability is another word for predictability. An accident may have been foreseeable if a
reasonable and prudent person would have predicted it would happen. A slip and fall accident
may be foreseeable, for example, if a property owner noticed a leaky pipe but did not fix it or
warn visitors of the possibility of wet floors. Similarly, a dog attack may be foreseeable if the
dog had previously bitten or attacked someone else in the past.

The foreseeability test asks if the defendant reasonably should have foreseen the
consequences – namely, the plaintiff’s injury – that would result from his or her conduct. If
the answer is yes, the defendant will most likely be liable for damages. If the plaintiff’s injury
was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of the defendant’s actions, however, the defendant
may not be liable. The foreseeability test may be something you or your lawyer must prove
before you can collect compensation from a defendant2

Proximate Cause

Proximate cause is the legal cause of an injury. It is the cause the law recognizes as the
primary reason the injury occurred. Proximate cause may not be the first thing that caused the
accident or even the most obvious act of negligence. It is the event or action that produced a
2 Referred from https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/foreseeability-
proximate-cause.html
 Page |5

foreseeable consequence – the personal injury. Your injury would not have happened were it
not for the proximate cause. As the plaintiff of a personal injury claim in Omaha, you or your
lawyer will need to show that your injuries were a direct result of the proximate cause.

Some states use the “but for” rule, while others use the “substantial factor” test. The “but for”
rule asks if the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligence. If the
answer is no, the injury would not have happened, the defendant will be liable for creating the
proximate cause. The “substantial factor” test considers whether the defendant’s negligence
was a substantial factor in causing the injury. The defendant’s actions must have materially
contributed to the injury. If the defendant’s negligence only trivially influenced the
occurrence of the injury, it will not be the proximate cause.3

Unforeseeable Type of Harm

 A person who causes injury to another is not liable if the type of harm does not
foreseeably flow from the negligent act.

 If a person drops a glass on the floor and does not clean it up, he/she would be liable
for the injuries caused to anyone who cut themselves on the glass.

 However, if a freak fire is somehow caused by sunlight that is magnified through the
broken glass, the person would not be liable for injuries caused by the fire because
they are not a foreseeable type of harm that would flow from the negligent act.

Unforeseeable Manner of Harm

 A person who causes injury to another person is not liable for a superseding cause
when the superseding cause itself was not foreseeable.

 For example, if David left a candle burning in his apartment while he was at work,
and, subsequently, a burglar broke into his apartment and knocked the candle over,
burning down the entire building, David would likely not be liable for injuries
sustained because the burglar was an unforeseeable, superseding cause.

3 https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personal-injury/foreseeability-proximate-
cause.html#:~:text=Foreseeability%20is%20a%20personal%20injury,of%20his%20or
%20her%20conduct.
 Page |6

Other examples of superseding causes that are usually deemed

unforeseeable:
 Acts of God (i.e., earthquakes)
 Criminal acts of third persons (i.e., burglary),
 Intentional torts of third persons (i.e., assault, battery, false imprisonment).4

Unforeseeable Extent of Harm/ Eggshell Skull Principle

 A person who causes injury to another person is liable for the full extent of the harm,
whether or not the extent of the harm is foreseeable.
 For example, if A is negligently driving through a small, suburban town and collides
with B’s car, A is liable for the full amount of damage caused to the car, despite the
fact that it would not be foreseeable to see such a car driving through a small,
suburban town.5

Case Reference

ICICI Bank vs Shanti Devi Sharma

 Shanti devi’s son committed suicide as a result of the manner in which the bank's
recovery agents had repossessed her son's motorcycle.
 They repossessed the vehicle taken in the presence of his friends who ridiculed him
for having lost the motorcycle.
 It is further mentioned in the FIR that the deceased had used his motorcycle to get
vegetables for his small restaurant. The deceased had to carry the vegetables on his
back in the absence of his motorcycle upon which members of the neighbourhood
allegedly made snide comments.
 On that very day, the deceased went inside the small inner room and hung himself to
death.
 It was held that the proximate cause of death of the deceased that led him to commit
suicide was on account of humiliation caused by the Bank people from where loan
was taken by him."6

4 Scribd.com
5 Scribd.com
6 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1515197/
 Page |7

Wing v. Morse

 The Supreme Judicial Court of Maine observed the following:

 “No doubt the rule of our law is that the immediate cause, the causa proxima, and not
the remote cause, is to be looked at; for as Lord Bacon says ‘It were infinite for the
law to judge the causes of causes and their impulsions one of another; therefore it
contenteth itself with the immediate cause, and judeth of acts by that, without looking
to any further degree.’.”7

Conclusion

 There is no difficulty if a single peril acts and causes the loss but often these perils do
not operate in isolation, but acts in succession or simultaneously and it will be
difficult to assess the relative effect of each peril or pick out one of these perils as the
actual cause or loss.
 Law says to look exclusively to the immediate and proximate cause, all causes
preceding the proximate cause being rejected as too remote.
 Nonetheless, it has been said that determining the proximate cause of a loss is simply
the application of common sense, and in many cases that would appear to be so.

7 Wing v. Morse, 300 A. 2d 49 (1973)