Proximate Cause in a Michigan DUI Causing Death Case

Proximate cause in a Michigan DUI causing death case is a separate legal issue from whether the accused was intoxicated. A blood or breath result may bear on the DUI allegation, but it does not by itself establish how a fatal collision occurred or whether the defendant’s operation legally caused the death.

Michigan statutes use the term OWI rather than DUI. Because DUI is the term more familiar to the public, this article uses DUI when discussing the issue generally and OWI when referring specifically to the Michigan statutory offense. Our separate guide explains the difference between DUI and OWI in Michigan.

The governing causation principles come primarily from three Michigan Supreme Court decisions: People v Schaefer, People v Feezel, and the Court’s June 24, 2026 decision in People v Morgan. Together, these cases explain why a fatality following a collision does not automatically establish criminal causation.

What Is Proximate Cause in a Michigan DUI Causing Death Case?

Michigan law requires both factual causation and proximate causation.

Factual causation asks whether the death would have occurred but for the defendant’s operation of the vehicle. If the result would have occurred regardless of the defendant’s conduct, factual causation may be absent.

Proximate causation asks a different question. It addresses whether the death was a direct and natural result of the defendant’s operation or whether an intervening event made the connection too remote to impose criminal liability.

In People v Schaefer, 473 Mich 418; 703 NW2d 774 (2005), the Michigan Supreme Court made clear that criminal causation contains both components. The prosecution does not merely have to show that the accused was involved in the collision. It must prove the legally required connection between the defendant’s operation and the resulting death.

This causation requirement is part of the broader prosecution for DUI causing injury or death in Michigan.

What Is a Superseding or Intervening Cause?

An intervening cause is another act, event, or condition that contributes to the injury or death. But an intervening cause does not automatically eliminate criminal liability.

The question is whether the intervening event became a superseding cause. Michigan courts evaluate this issue primarily through objective reasonable foreseeability.

Ordinary negligence by another person is generally considered reasonably foreseeable and ordinarily will not break the causal chain. Gross negligence or intentional misconduct can present a different question because sufficiently extraordinary conduct may supersede the defendant’s conduct.

The defense does not establish a causation defense merely by showing that another driver made a mistake or contributed to the collision. The issue is whether the intervening conduct was legally significant enough to supersede the defendant’s operation as a proximate cause.

Can the Victim’s Negligence Break the Chain of Causation?

Sometimes, but ordinary negligence is generally not enough.

In People v Feezel, 486 Mich 184; 783 NW2d 67 (2010), the Michigan Supreme Court explained that ordinary negligence is reasonably foreseeable and therefore ordinarily does not constitute a superseding cause. Gross negligence or intentional misconduct may present a different question.

Gross negligence in this context requires more than carelessness or a routine traffic violation. The conduct must rise to a level sufficient to affect the legal causation analysis.

When Can the Victim’s Alcohol or Drug Use Matter?

Evidence that the deceased person had consumed alcohol or drugs is not automatically relevant to proximate cause.

Feezel rejected the proposition that intoxication alone necessarily establishes gross negligence. The more important question is whether evidence of intoxication helps explain conduct that bears on causation.

The Michigan Supreme Court substantially clarified this issue in its June 24, 2026 decision in People v Morgan, Docket No. 167492.

Morgan involved a fatal collision between a car making a U-turn and a motorcycle. Evidence indicated that the motorcyclist may have accelerated rapidly and may have been traveling significantly above the posted speed limit. The defense also sought to introduce evidence concerning the motorcyclist’s blood alcohol concentration.

The trial court permitted evidence of speed but excluded the BAC evidence. The Michigan Supreme Court held that excluding the BAC evidence was an abuse of discretion.

How Did Schaefer, Feezel, and Morgan Develop Michigan Causation Law?

What Evidence Can Matter in a Michigan DUI Causing Death Defense?

A meaningful proximate-cause investigation may require substantially more than the police crash report.

Depending on the facts, potentially important evidence may include:

• vehicle event data recorder or crash data recorder information;
• vehicle speed, acceleration, braking, and steering data;
• independent accident reconstruction;
• roadway measurements and geometry;
• lighting and visibility conditions;
• sight distance;
• weather and road surface conditions;
• surveillance, dash-camera, or body-camera recordings;
• witness observations;
• vehicle damage and mechanical condition;
• toxicology evidence;
• cell-phone or other electronic evidence; and
• expert analysis of perception and response time.

Toxicology evidence may itself require scientific analysis. A blood result obtained after a collision does not necessarily establish a person’s precise BAC at the moment of impact. In an appropriate case, an expert may use retrograde extrapolation in a DUI case to estimate an earlier alcohol concentration, but the reliability of that estimate depends heavily on the underlying assumptions and available facts.

A BAC result may therefore be important to the intoxication allegation without resolving the causation question. When causation is genuinely disputed, the defense may need to reconstruct the event second by second: where each vehicle was located, how fast it was moving, what each driver could see, how much time each driver had to perceive and react, and whether another person’s conduct materially changed the sequence of events.

Who Decides Whether Proximate Cause Exists?

The judge and jury may have different roles in a proximate-cause dispute.

A judge decides legal and evidentiary questions, including whether particular evidence is admissible. When admissible evidence creates a genuine factual dispute concerning causation, however, the jury may have to determine what occurred and whether the prosecution proved proximate cause beyond a reasonable doubt.

Morgan illustrates the distinction. The Supreme Court concluded that evidence of the decedent’s possible BAC was relevant and could be considered together with other evidence concerning the motorcyclist’s speed and acceleration.

Causation can also become important before trial. In a felony DUI causing death prosecution, a defendant ordinarily has a right to a preliminary examination in Michigan, where the prosecution must establish probable cause supporting the charged offense.

What Happens if the Prosecution Cannot Prove Proximate Cause?

Proximate causation is an element of Michigan OWI causing death. The prosecution bears the burden of proving it beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.

The defense does not have to prove that another person caused the death. Instead, the defense may demonstrate that the prosecution has failed to establish the legally required causal connection between the defendant’s operation and the death.

Depending on the procedural posture of the case, a causation issue may arise at a preliminary examination, through a pretrial motion, during evidentiary litigation, through expert testimony at trial, or in a motion for directed verdict.

A successful causation defense to the causing-death charge does not necessarily eliminate every possible criminal offense arising from the incident. The result depends on the charges filed and the evidence supporting each offense.

Why Early Investigation Matters in a Michigan DUI Causing Death Case

Important collision evidence can disappear or become substantially more difficult to obtain with time. Vehicles may be repaired, sold, or destroyed. Electronic data may be overwritten. Surveillance recordings may disappear. Road conditions can change, and witness memories can become less precise.

For that reason, a DUI causing death investigation may require early decisions about preserving vehicles, downloading electronic data, inspecting the crash scene, obtaining video, preserving physical evidence, and retaining qualified experts.

Not every DUI causing death case presents a viable proximate-cause defense. But when causation is genuinely disputed, identifying the issue early can materially affect how the case is investigated and defended.