Liability for damage arises when there are cumulatively fulfilled assumptions determined by law. Causal connection is one such assumption which implies a connection between a harmful action as a cause and the occurrence of damage as a consequence, however, the legislation did not provide a precise definition, but left the task of determining it to judicial practice. If the causal connection as a presumption is not fulfilled, to that extent there is no liability for damage. When determining the causal connection, various theories came to our aid: theory of equality of conditions (conditio sine qua non theory), adequacy theory and the theory of the protective goal of the norm. Our jurisprudence has favored the adequacy theory, which states that only that which is typical for the occurrence of damage is taken as a cause, and a typical cause is that which regularly leads to a certain harmful consequence. In the multitude of causes that led to the damage, human action is taken, either by doing or by omission. In addition, the causal connection must be unbroken because at the moment of interruption, the perpetrator is not responsible for further consequences. Causal connection as a presumption of liability must always be proven, and the burden of proof is on the injured party, however, in some cases a causal relationship is assumed, such as liability for damage from dangerous things and dangerous activities. As a presumption, it is most prominent in situations of objective liability for damage, that is, in the case of liability for damage caused by dangerous things and dangerous activities, liability for a defective product, responsibility of the organizer of the event as a special case of responsibility and environmental damage.