Traditionally, the assignment of a harmful result to its author has been
done from a purely material or factual judgment in which, depending
on the causal theory used by the court, the answer to the existence of
a causal link between the damage suffered and the action of the agent
may vary, as well as yield results that, in light of equity and justice, and
even common sense, come to be exaggerated or counterintuitive. This
paper addresses this problem, once described the different solutions that have been given throughout history and its drawbacks, it presents what is considered the most appropriate theory to determine causality in each case, to overcome the defects that were blamed on those that preceded them and its acceptance in the comparative field. It reveals how, from the differentiation between imputation and proximate causation, results are more consistent with the concept of justice underlying civic liability. However, criticisms towards this theory were not unknown; therefore alternatives considered to be more suitable to answer these remarks are presented.