Which term refers to an act that interrupts the causal chain because it is independent of the original act and not reasonably foreseeable?

• A. Statute
• B. Intervening act
• C. But-for rule
• D. Common carrier

Answer: (B)

In tort causation, the idea is that a later event can break the link between the original wrong and the resulting harm if that later event is independent of the original act and not reasonably foreseeable. This is called an intervening act. When such an act occurs and it is truly independent and unforeseeable, it becomes a superseding cause that interrupts the causal chain, potentially relieving the initial wrongdoer of liability for the injuries caused by that intervening event.

So the correct concept is that an intervening act interrupts the causal chain because it is independent of the original act and not reasonably foreseeable. If the intervening event had been foreseeable or was a direct consequence of the original act, the chain isn’t broken and liability can still attach to the initial party.

For context, other terms don’t describe this chain interruption. A statute is simply law. The but-for rule addresses causation in a general sense—would the harm have happened but for the defendant’s conduct—but it doesn’t capture the idea of a new, independent event that severs the causal link. A common carrier refers to a type of carrier with special duties, not causation concepts.