injuries. 18. The DEA agents’ unreasonable search plan did not cause Villafranea’s injury. Villafranca, No. 3:06-CV-0806, slip op. at 3 ¶¶ 15-18. Because we hold that the district court’s finding that the agents’ alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of Villafranca’s injuries is not clearly erroneous, we need not re-visit the district court’s determination that the search plan was unreasonable. Villafranea now argues that a “new and independent cause” must arise from the conduct of an outside force and not from his actions in the incident. Thus, Villafranca urges that the district court’s findings on proximate cause were incorrect since the agents misconstrued his resistance. See Omega Contracting, Inc. v. Torres, 191 S.W.3d 828, 844 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2006, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The Government does not challenge this
holding that new and independent cause contemplates that an independent force rather than the alleged negligent acts of the parties was responsible for the plaintiffs injuries holding it is reversible error for a trial court to exclude a definition on new and independent cause an inferential rebuttal defense when supported by the evidence holding there was no independent tort cause of action between spouses for damages to the community estate recognizing a public policy against discrimination but not providing for an independent cause of action holding that a  1983 claim is an independent original action rather than a review proceeding even when it challenges an administrative action