Because the facts are undisputed, we will address it now. The question of proximate cause, like duty, depends in part on foreseeability. Moning, supra at 439. Proximate cause is that which operates to produce particular consequences without the intervention of any independent, unforeseen cause, without which the injuries would not have occurred. It involves a determination that the connection between the wrongful conduct and the injury is of such a nature that it is socially and economically desirable to hold the wrongdoer liable.
Proximate cause is usually a factual question to be decided by the jury.
Here, defendant argues that Anthony's intervening acts of getting into the car, driving to a store and shooting decedent were superseding acts which cut off liability. However, an intervening act is not a superseding act if the injury was reasonably foreseeable. When a defendant's negligence enhances the likelihood that the intervening act will occur, the act is reasonably foreseeable, and the defendant remains liable. Here, reasonable minds could differ on whether Anthony's intervening actions superseded defendant's actions, thus cutting off his liability. Anthony did not shoot a stranger.