Mitchell v. Gonzales
Supreme Court of California · 1991
54 Cal.3d 1041, pp. 1049–1053
ATTORNEY REVIEWED
Reviewed by Andrew (Andy) R. Gillin
California State Bar #45226 ↗ · Approval recorded November 4, 2026
How we record review approvalWhat the court decided
The court favored a substantial-factor instruction for cause in fact over a confusing older instruction.
Where the rule has limits
Proof of a careless act alone is not enough. The claimed harm must still be linked to that act.
Read the actual decision
Mitchell v. Gonzales — full opinion ↗
Legal review is recorded above.
Questions this decision helps explain
Court decisions have distinct facts. Read the opinion and the qualifications in each guide before applying a rule to a different situation.