What is the test for determining whether a defendant is liable for a result directly caused by another contributing cause?

In circumstances where causes other than the defendant's criminal conduct also contribute to the victim's economic loss, courts consider the impact of these other contributors to determine if they act to absolve defendant from paying restitution. (People v. Foalima (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 1376, 1397.) " ' " 'In general, an "independent" intervening cause will absolve a defendant of criminal liability. [Citation.] However, in order to be "independent" the intervening cause must be "unforeseeable . . . an extraordinary and abnormal occurrence, which rises to the level of an exonerating, superseding cause." [Citation.] On the other hand, a "dependent" intervening cause will not relieve the defendant of criminal liability. "A defendant may be criminally liable for a result directly caused by his act even if there is another contributing cause. If an intervening cause is a normal and reasonably foreseeable result of defendant's original act the intervening act is 'dependent' and not a superseding cause, and will not relieve defendant of liability. [Citation.] '[ ] The consequence need not have been a strong probability; a possible consequence which might reasonably have been contemplated is enough. [ ] The precise consequence need not have been foreseen; it is enough that the defendant should have foreseen the possibility of some harm of the kind which might result from his act." ' " ' " (Ibid.)