Which rule posits that harm is the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act and should be foreseen by an ordinarily prudent person?

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

Answer: (C)

This question tests how proximate cause is determined through foreseeability in negligence. The rule says the harm must be a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s act and that a ordinarily prudent person should foresee that harm. If the injury is something a reasonable person could anticipate as a likely outcome, the defendant is liable for the proximate cause. This focuses on foreseeability of the result, not merely whether the harm happened (which is the but-for idea of causation in fact). The but-for rule asks whether the harm wouldn’t have occurred without the defendant’s conduct, which is a different aspect of causation. Intervening acts and concurrent causation concern whether a subsequent event or multiple causes break or combine in the chain of causation rather than the foreseeability of the outcome.