Issue: In Texas, what is the scope of the plaintiff’s burden to show proximate cause?
|Area of Law:||Litigation & Procedure, Personal Injury & Negligence|
|Keywords:||Proximate cause; Legal sufficiency of the evidence; Burden|
|Cited Cases:||935 S.W.2d 114; 4 S.W.3d 55; 435 S.W.2d 568|
The appeals court reviews a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence to support a finding of fact by the party without the burden of proof under a “no-evidence” standard, and reviews a challenge of factual insufficiency for evidence that the finding “is factually insufficient or is so against the great weight and preponderance as to be manifestly unjust, . . . shocks the conscience, or . . . clearly demonstrates bias.” TA s "Wichita County v. Hart, 989 S.W.2d 2, 6 (Tex. App.—F" c 0Wichita County v. Hart, 989 S.W.2d 2, 6-7 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth), review denied (1999).
The plaintiff’s burden is to prove that the defendant’s actions proximately caused his or her injury. Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d at 118 (Tex. 1996).TA s "Leitch v. Hornsby, 935 S.W.2d 114, 118 (Tex. 1996)" c 0 “Proximate cause” is made up of foreseeability and cause in fact. Id. It has been defined as
that cause which, in its natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by any new and independent cause, produces a result, and without which cause, such result would not have occurred, and which result, or some similar result, would have been reasonably foreseen by a person of ordinary care in the light of the attending circumstances.
TA s "Holt v. Ray, 435 S.W.2d 568, 571 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eas" c 1 l "Holt v. Ray, 435 S.W.2d 568 (Tex. Civ. App.—Eastland 1969, no writ.)"Holt v. Ray, 435 S.W.2d 568, […]