Under which proximate cause rule is the harm considered a natural and probable consequence and foreseen by an ordinarily reasonable person?

• A. Intervening act
• B. Concurrent causation
• C. But-for rule
• D. Foreseeability rule

Answer: (D)

Foreseeability is the rule at play here. In evaluating proximate cause, liability attaches when the harm is a natural and probable consequence of the negligent act and is something an ordinarily reasonable person would foresee. If the injury or damage falls within the range of outcomes a reasonable person could anticipate from the negligent conduct, the causal connection is upheld.

Intervening acts can break the chain of causation unless they are themselves foreseeable or dependent on the original negligence. Concurrent causation involves multiple independent causes contributing to the damage. The but-for rule asks whether the harm would not have occurred but for the negligent act, which focuses on causation in fact rather than whether the result was foreseeable.