N.J. Model Civil Jury Charge 6.12

6.12 PROXIMATE CAUSE — WHERE THERE IS CLAIM THAT

CONCURRENT CAUSES OF HARM WERE PRESENT

(Approved 5/98; Revised 11/2023)

NOTE TO JUDGE

This charge is designed to address the more complex case where a

defendant’s (or a party’s) negligent conduct combines with other causes

that lead to the plaintiff’s injury or harm . Conklin v. Hannoch

Weisman, 145 N.J. 395, 417 (1996); Camp v. Jiffy Lube #114, 309 N.J.

Super. 305, 309 (App. Div. 1998). However, the present charge is not

intended to address those causes where there is an issue as to: ( 1) the

foreseeability of the injury or harm; or (2) an intervening or superseding

cause. The trial judge should employ M odel Civil Charge 6.13 for

cases where the foreseeability of the injury or harm is an issue.

Depending upon the facts of the case, Model Civil Charge 6.14 should

be used in conjunction with Model Civil Charge 6.12 or 6.13 if there is

an issue as to intervening or superseding causes.

To find proximate cause, you must first find that [defendant or other party]’s

negligence was a cause of the accident/incident/event. If you find that [defendant or

other party] is not a cause of the accident/incident/event, then you must find no

proximate cause.

Second, you must find that [defendant or other party]’s negligence was a

substantial factor that singly, or in combination with other causes, brought about the

accident/incident/event or injury/loss/harm claimed by [plaintiff]. By substantial, it

is meant that it was not a remote , trivial, or inconsequential cause. 1 The me re

circumstance that there may also be another cause of the accident/incident/event or

injury/loss/harm does not mean that there cannot be a finding of proximate cause.

Nor is it necessary for the negligence of [defendant or other party] to be the sole

cause of accident/incident/event or injury/loss/harm. If you find that [defendant or

other party]’s negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the

accident/incident/event or injury/loss/harm, then you should find that [defendant or

other party]’s negligence was a proximate cause of the accident/incident/event or

injury/loss/harm.

1 In toxic tort (i.e. asbestos exposure) cases where the plaintiff has presented competent and

credible evidence that even a minimal exposure to t he substance can cause the claimed injury or

disease, it may be appropriate for the c ourt to instruct the jury that a substantial factor is an

“efficient cause” of the claimed injury or disease and not a remote or trivial cause having only an

insignificant connection w ith the harm, but that liability should not attach based on casual or

minimal contact with the product or imposed based on mere guesswork. See Fowler v. Akzo

Nobel Chemicals, Inc., 251 N.J. 300 (2022).