Another test deals with cases in which there are two actual causes but only one is negligent. For example, there are three equidistant points, A, B, and C. Paula's house is at point A. Dave negligently ignites a fire at point B. Lightning simultaneously strikes point C, starting a second fire. The fire at point B and the fire at point C both burn towards point A. Paula's house burns down. Unlike Summers v. Tice, there is only one defendant in this situation. Most courts will still hold Dave's negligence to be an actual cause, as his conduct was a substantial factor in causing Paula's damage. This is sometimes called the substantial factor test. Summers v. Tice, 33 Cal. 2d 80 (1948) Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. 2d 486 (1944) Proximate cause There are many tests for determining whether an actual cause is a proximate one. Most involve some form of foreseeability. Justice Cardozo has two factors to determine if there was a proximate cause between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's breach of duty: Is the plaintiff's injury a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's breach of duty? Is the plaintiff a reasonably foreseeable victim of the defendant's breach of duty? Justice Andrews has several factors to determine if there was a proximate cause between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's breach of duty: Was there a natural and continuous sequence between the plaintiff's injury and the defendant's breach of duty? Was the injury caused directly or indirectly? Based on human experience, would people expect the result to happen? Was the result too remote in time and/or place in light of the circumstances? Were there intervening causes? Were the intervening causes ones people would expect or were they so unusual (i.e., superseding causes) as to break the chain of causation? Ultramares Corporation v. Touche, 174 N.E. 441 (1931), on proximate cause in negligent misstatement cases Other causes of action Negligent infliction of emotional distress Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. 232 Cal. Rptr 688 (1986) Dillon v. Legg, '68 Cal. 2d 728 (1968) Thing v. LaChusa 48 Cal. 3d 644, 666-667 (1989). Medical malpractice Ewing v. Goldstein Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (1914), the principle of informed consent before operations Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 (9th Cir. 1983) Interspousal Tort