What is the test for determining whether a person can be held liable for a result directly caused by their actions?

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. [Citation.]" [Citation.] [Citations.]" ( People v. Cervantes, supra , 26 Cal.4th at p. 871, 111 Cal.Rptr.2d 148, 29 P.3d 225.)

" [T]here is no bright line demarcating a legally sufficient proximate cause from one that is too remote. Ordinarily the question will be for the jury, though in some instances undisputed evidence may reveal a cause so remote that a court may properly decide that no rational trier of fact could find the needed nexus. [Citation.]" ( People v. Brady, supra , 129 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1325-1326, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 286.)