M Civ JI 15.03 More Than One Proximate Cause

There may be more than one proximate cause. To be a proximate cause, the claimed negligence need not be the only cause nor the last cause. A cause may be proximate although it and another cause act at the same time or in combination to produce the occurrence.

Note on Use

This instruction should be given as an introduction to M Civ JI 15.04, 15.05, or 15.06. The instruction may also be given where the only possible additional proximate cause is the conduct of the plaintiff.

The use note to the predecessor version of this instruction included the admonition that it was not to be used if the only possible additional proximate cause was the conduct of the plaintiff. The reason for that admonition was that there was a separate instruction on the plaintiff’s conduct as a “proximate contributing cause,” M Civ JI 15.02 Definition of Proximately Contributed. Several cases repeated this admonition. E.g., Stephens v Spiwak, 61 Mich App 647; 233 NW2d 124 (1975). In 1988, the Committee deleted M Civ JI 15.02 and made the instruction that defines proximate cause, M Civ JI 15.01, party-neutral by eliminating the reference to the defendant’s negligent conduct. These changes make the Stephens case obsolete and make the current version of M Civ JI 15.03 applicable even if the only other possible additional proximate cause is the plaintiff’s conduct.

This instruction should not be given in a case against a government employee under the employee exception to the governmental immunity act. Robinson v City of Detroit, 462 Mich 439; 613 NW2d 307 (2000) (overruling Dedes v Asch, 446 Mich 99; 521 NW2d 488 (1994)). See the Comment below.

Comment

There may be more than one proximate cause contributing to an injury; the defendant’s negligence need not be the sole cause. Brisboy v Fibreboard Corp, 429 Mich 540; 418 NW2d 650 (1988); Barringer v Arnold, 358 Mich 594; 101 NW2d 365 (1960); Gleason v Hanafin, 308 Mich 31; 13 NW2d 196 (1944). It is prejudicially erroneous for instructions on proximate cause to refer to “the proximate cause” instead of “a proximate cause” in cases in which it is an issue whether there was more than one proximate cause. Kirby v Larson, 400 Mich 585, 600–607; 256 NW2d 400, 408–411 (1977).

Governmental employees are not individually liable under the motor vehicle exception (MCL 691.1405) to the governmental immunity act unless their conduct constitutes the proximate cause, that is, the one most immediate, efficient, and direct cause of the plaintiff’s injury. Robinson (construing the employee provision of the act, MCL 691.1407(2)).

History

Amended December 1988.