Proof that something can cause a kind of harm.

"Can" is the key word. General causation asks whether a product, substance, or condition is capable of causing the injury at issue in people generally - not whether it caused one specific person's injury. That second question is specific causation. People often blur the two, and that causes trouble fast. A bad outcome after exposure does not automatically prove the exposure was the cause. Timing alone is not enough, and neither is a strong personal belief. Courts usually look for reliable medical or scientific evidence, often through expert testimony, studies, testing, and accepted methods rather than guesswork.

This matters because many injury cases fail before they really begin if general causation is weak. In a product liability claim, a plaintiff may need to show that the product was capable of causing the kind of illness or injury claimed before arguing that it actually harmed them. Without that foundation, the defense may attack the case as speculation and seek to exclude the expert under evidentiary rules.

In Hawaii, there is no special statewide shortcut that lets someone skip this proof in a product case. If visibility is poor from vog on the Big Island's leeward coast, for example, that may explain how an accident happened - but it does not by itself prove a chemical, device, or warning failure was capable of causing a particular medical injury. General causation sets that baseline.