Which term refers to the harm that would not have occurred but-for the defendant's actions?

• A. Duty
• B. Breach
• C. Direct cause
• D. Proximate cause

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is causation in fact—the harm that would not have occurred but-for the defendant’s actions. In negligence, you need a real, factual connection between what the defendant did and the injury. The direct cause is the actual driver of the harm: the injury would not have happened if the defendant hadn’t acted in that way. This is known as causation in fact or the “but-for” cause.

It’s important to distinguish this from proximate cause, which asks whether the harm was a foreseeable and legally connected result that liability should cover. Duty and breach are about whether the defendant owed a duty to exercise care and whether that duty was violated. Even with a direct cause present, liability can be limited by proximate cause if the harm isn’t sufficiently connected to the careless act in a legal sense.