Which concept concerns whether harm was a foreseeable consequence and limits liability?

• A. Factual causation
• B. Contributory negligence
• C. Proximate causation
• D. Breach

Answer: (C)

Proximate causation is about whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct and whether it is fair to impose liability for that harm. It sets a limit on liability by focusing on the predictability and policy reasons behind why some outcomes should be recoverable and others not. If the damage that occurs is a natural and probable result of the careless act, liability usually attaches. If the harm is too remote or unlikely, courts may say the chain of causation isn’t proximate and deny liability, even if the conduct was a factual cause.

For example, if a driver runs a red light and injures a pedestrian, that injury is a foreseeable result of the negligence, so proximate causation is met. But if a highly unusual and unforeseeable sequence of events follows from the act, the harm may be considered too remote.

Factual causation, by contrast, asks whether the harm would have happened but for the defendant’s conduct. Contributory negligence concerns the plaintiff’s own negligence reducing or barring recovery. Breach refers to failing to meet the standard of care.