Which description best characterizes cause in fact in legal causation?

Which description best characterizes cause in fact in legal causation?

• A. Proximate foreseeability of harm
• B. The severity of the injury
• C. A legal presumption
• D. Direct link showing the harm would not have occurred without the breach

Answer: (D)

Cause in fact centers on the actual link between the defendant’s conduct and the injury. It’s proven by the but-for test: the harm would not have occurred but for the breach. This is the plain factual connection that shows the event wouldn’t have happened without the defendant’s action or omission. Proximate cause, by contrast, deals with foreseeability and policy—whether it’s appropriate to hold the defendant liable for this particular harm, given how the chain of events might unfold. The severity of the injury isn’t what establishes the factual link, and a legal presumption is a rule used to determine a fact or allocate proof, not the direct link itself. So the description that best captures cause in fact is the direct link showing the harm would not have occurred without the breach.

Cause in fact centers on the actual link between the defendant’s conduct and the injury. It’s proven by the but-for test: the harm would not have occurred but for the breach. This is the plain factual connection that shows the event wouldn’t have happened without the defendant’s action or omission.

Proximate cause, by contrast, deals with foreseeability and policy—whether it’s appropriate to hold the defendant liable for this particular harm, given how the chain of events might unfold. The severity of the injury isn’t what establishes the factual link, and a legal presumption is a rule used to determine a fact or allocate proof, not the direct link itself.

So the description that best captures cause in fact is the direct link showing the harm would not have occurred without the breach.