Miss this issue, and a claim can fail even when a product was clearly dangerous and the injury is severe. Specific causation is the proof that a particular exposure, defect, or product actually caused this injured person's harm, not just that the product is capable of causing that kind of harm in people generally. It is the case-specific link between the product and the injury. That is different from general causation, which asks only whether a product can cause the condition at all.

In practice, specific causation usually depends on facts such as dose, timing, duration of exposure, medical history, alternative causes, and whether symptoms appeared in a pattern consistent with the claimed mechanism of injury. In a product case, a plaintiff may need expert testimony to show that the product more likely than not caused the injury. If the evidence shows only possibility, suspicion, or a loose temporal connection, that is often not enough.

For a Connecticut injury claim, this point can control the outcome under the Connecticut Product Liability Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 52-572m to 52-572r. Even if a product had a defect and posed a known risk, the plaintiff still must prove that defect caused the plaintiff's actual damages. The timing rules also matter: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-577a sets a 3-year limitation period from when the injury is first sustained or discovered or should have been discovered, and a 10-year statute of repose, with limited exceptions.