According to the traditional theory of civil liability, the requirements for liability are the wrongful act, the damage, and the causal link between the first and the second. With the advancement of the interpretation of the institute, the hypotheses of mitigation of the first requirement have been significantly expanded, shifting the focus from the wrongful act to the unjust damage. This is commonly done through what is called objective liability, when the harmful agent is liable regardless of fault. In these cases, if the damage exists, it is up to the one who may be liable to demonstrate the absence of a causal link between any of their conduct and the harm caused to the victim. The hypothesis of a harmful conduct whose consequences unfold into multiple damages is also increasingly common, which makes it necessary to limit the extent of the compensable damage. In this scenario of expanding the scope of civil liability and the proliferation of species and hypotheses of damages, the causal link is increasingly relevant to reasonably limit the chain of civil liability and, likewise, the extent of the damages that deserve to be compensated. Therefore, it is important to improve the interpretation of the causal link, delimiting the excludents of the causal link that must be observed by judges in concrete cases and identifying, from an analysis of the decisions of the Superior Court of Justice and the São Paulo State Court of Justice regarding legal causality in cases involving car accidents, the failures committed in the application of this institute.