And even criminal intervenors only break the chain of causation when their actions could not reasonably have been anticipated by the defendant. Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC, 362 Ga. App. 1, 8 (2), 865 S.E.2d 589 (2021) ("For an independent act or event to eliminate other conduct as a proximate cause, it must be neither foreseeable by the defendant nor triggered by the defendant’s act, and it must have been sufficient of itself to cause the injury.") (citation and punctuation omitted).

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC , 362 Ga. App. 1, 5 (1), 865 S.E.2d 589 (2021). The benchmark is foreseeability, and where the criminal conduct is not foreseeable, the rule acts to limit liability.

(Citation and punctuation omitted; emphasis in original.) Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC , 362 Ga. App. 1, 15 (3) (b), 865 S.E.2d 589 (2021). Importantly here, an "essential element of nuisance is control over the cause of harm.

This policy decision is largely grounded in the concept of foreseeability: a wrongdoer should be responsible only for consequences which, based on our common sense and understanding, would probably or naturally flow from his conduct. (Citations and punctuation omitted.) Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC , 362 Ga. App. 1, 5 (1), 865 S.E.2d 589 (2021). Here, Karekezi's employer paired the light curtain with a full-revolution clutch press despite being specifically warned, both by Pinnacle and federal regulations and standards, not to do so.

Under Georgia law, nuisance, negligence, and trespass claims all require a plaintiff to show causation and damages. See McBrayer v. Governors Ridge Office ParkAss'n, Inc., 860 S.E.2d 58, 62 (Ga.Ct.App. 2021) (nuisance); Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC, 865 S.E.2d 589, 594 (Ga.Ct.App. 2021) (negligence); Petree v. Dep't of Transp., 340 Ga.App. 694, 702 (Ga.Ct.App. 2017) (trespass).

Starting with Ready Mix's first argument, what constitutes a nuisance “defies any exact or comprehensive definition . . . but it does have some core requirements.” Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC, 362 Ga.App. 1, 14 (2021) (quotation marks and citation omitted). For example, “the hallmark of a nuisance claim is some invasion of the plaintiff's interest in land.

But the "hallmark" of a nuisance is "some invasion of the plaintiff's interest in land." Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC, 362 Ga.App. 1, 865 S.E.2d 589, 601 (2021). "[L]iability for a nuisance arises out of responsibility for the continuance or maintenance of a nuisance in addition to the creation of one[.]"

“Cause-in-fact requires a determination that, but for the defendant's act, the injury to the plaintiff would not have occurred.” Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC, 865 S.E.2d 589, 595 (Ga.Ct.App. 2021). “Proximate cause, on the other hand, is a separate limit on legal liability.

Proximate cause in this case is not “plain and undisputed” and must be determined by the jury.Blondell v. Courtney Station 300 LLC, 865 Ga.App. 1, 5 (2021) (“[I]t is axiomatic that questions regarding proximate cause ‘undeniably a jury question' and may only be determined by the courts ‘in plain and undisputed cases.'”)

(Doc. 31, at 21 (quoting Biondell v. Courtney Station, 865 S.E.2d 589, 601 (Ga.Ct.App. 2021).)