To prove direct cause, a plaintiff must show the injury would not have occurred “but for” the defendant's conduct. Proximate cause is concerned with foreseeability. A plaintiff's injury must have been a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's conduct to establish proximate cause.
https://www.klnivenlaw.com/resources/understanding-causation...

bezpośrednio i pierwotnie
w sposób bezpośredni i pierwotny spowodował szkody...
---

What is the difference between proximate cause and actual cause?

Actual cause, or cause in fact, is the direct cause of an accident. Proximate cause, or legal cause, is an underlying cause of an accident. For example, if a truck driver swerves and hits a car, the driver is the actual cause of the accident. But if they moved to avoid a bicyclist riding on the road, the bicyclist’s unsafe driving might be the proximate cause.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/proxima...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 22 hrs (2023-03-01 18:15:53 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Actual vs. Proximate Cause

The actual cause is also known as “cause in fact.” The actual cause is relatively straightforward. It is what actually caused the victim’s injuries or losses. For example, in a case where a vehicle strikes a pedestrian, the motor vehicle driver’s actions are the actual cause of the accident. The actual cause, however, may not be the legal cause. The person behind the actual cause might not be the liable party in a personal injury case.

Proximate cause is the legal cause of an injury. It determines liability. Proximate cause may not be the final event before an injury took place, and it may not be the first event that set off a chain reaction. Instead, it is the cause that produced a foreseeable reaction, and the one but for which the injury or harm in question would not have happened. In many cases, it is required to prove that the defendant’s negligence was both the actual and proximate cause of the injury. In other states, proof of substantial cause is enough.

In the pedestrian accident example mentioned above, the actual cause of the injury might have been the motor vehicle driver’s actions, but if a defective tire blew out and this propelled the vehicle into the pedestrian, the tire blowout would be the proximate cause of the injury. This would make the manufacturer of the defective tire liable for the accident rather than the driver that struck the pedestrian.
https://www.knowleslawfirm.com/what-is-the-difference-betwee...

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 hrs (2023-03-01 18:58:04 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Opcja: stanowiąc przyczynę bezpośrednią i pierwotną
---

Niewątpliwie bowiem to uchybienie przez ubezpieczonego w/w obowiązkom stanowiło bezpośrednią i pierwotną przyczynę przedmiotowego zdarzenia
https://www.saos.org.pl/judgments/253160

przebieg zdarzenia i przyczynę, bezpośrednią i pierwotną ( pkt. 3.3. protokołu przyczyna bezpośrednia wjechanie pociągu w oberwany element podwieszenia sieci trakcyjnej (ukośnik), przyczyna pierwotna pęknięcie izolatora ukośnika)
http://orzeczenia.rzeszow.so.gov.pl/content/$N/154010000003027_VI_GC_000264_2018_Uz_2019-08-28_002