Which part of causation in negligence is defined as harm that is reasonably foreseeable?

• A. The actual cause
• B. The but-for test
• C. No cause
• D. Proximate cause

Answer: (D)

The part being tested is proximate cause. In negligence, liability isn’t just about the defendant’s conduct causing harm in a factual sense; it’s about whether the harm was the kind of consequence that the defendant should have reasonably anticipated. That foreseeability threshold limits liability to harms that flow in a natural and probable sequence from the defendant’s actions. The actual fact of causation (often assessed by the but-for test) shows the conduct and harm are linked, but proximate cause determines whether the link is strong enough to hold the defendant legally responsible for that harm. An example: if carelessly leaving a lit cigarette could reasonably start a fire injuring someone nearby, that harm is foreseeable and proximate cause is satisfied; if the resulting harm is something highly improbable or far removed, proximate cause may not be found, even if the conduct technically contributed.