This is known as the principle of proximate cause.
The violation of the building code establishes negligence per se and the contractor will be found liable, so long as the contractor's breach of the code was the cause (proximate cause and actual cause) of the injury.
The law on negligence may be assessed in general terms according to a five-part model which includes the assessment of duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages.
Some jurisdictions recognize five elements, duty, breach, actual cause, proximate cause, and damages.
We say that one's negligence is 'too remote' (in England) or not a 'proximate cause' (in the U.S.) of another's harm if one would 'never' reasonably foresee it happening.
Note that a 'proximate cause' in U.S. terminology (to do with the chain of events between the action and the injury) should not be confused with the 'proximity test' under the English duty of care (to do with closeness of relationship).
In jurisdictions following the minority rule, defendants must phrase their remoteness arguments in terms of proximate cause if they wish the court to take the case away from the jury.
In law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury.
This test is called proximate cause.
Proximate cause is a key principle of Insurance and is concerned with how the loss or damage actually occurred.
There are several competing theories of proximate cause (see Other factors).
proximate cause is a legal limitation on cause-in-fact.
This test is called proximate cause, from the Latin proxima causa.
There are several competing theories of proximate cause.
The most common test of proximate cause under the American legal system is foreseeability.
But proximate cause is still met if a thrown baseball misses the target and knocks a heavy object off a shelf behind them, which causes a blunt-force injury.
The doctrine of proximate cause is notoriously confusing.
The doctrine is phrased in the language of causation, but in most of the cases in which proximate cause is actively litigated, there is not much real dispute that the defendant but-for caused the plaintiff's injury.
But under proximate cause, the property owners adjacent to the river could sue (Kinsman I), but not the owners of the boats or cargoes which could not move until the river was reopened (Kinsman II).
Therefore, in the final version of the Restatement (Third), Torts: Liability for Physical and Emotional Harm, published in 2010, the American Law Institute argued that proximate cause should be replaced with scope of liability.