Causes in fact are typically established by which test?

• A. But-for causation means the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's act.
• B. But-for causation means the injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant's act.
• C. But-for causation is the same as proximate causation.
• D. But-for causation is irrelevant in tort.

Answer: (A)

In tort law, causes in fact are shown using the but-for test. This means we ask whether the injury would have happened if the defendant had not acted as they did. If the injury would not have occurred absent the defendant’s conduct, that conduct is a cause in fact. This is separate from proximate cause, which is about foreseeability and policy limits on liability. For example, if a driver runs a red light and that action would have prevented the crash, then the driver’s act is a cause in fact. Saying the injury would have occurred regardless of the defendant’s act would not satisfy but-for causation, and the but-for test is not the same as proximate causation. It’s also not irrelevant in tort.