Which statement correctly describes proximate cause?

Which statement correctly describes proximate cause?

• A. Intervening factors would cut liability
• B. Eggshell victim would cut liability
• C. Proximate cause is determined by foreseeability
• D. The chain of causation is irrelevant

Answer: (C)

Proximate cause hinges on foreseeability: would a reasonable person anticipate that the defendant’s conduct could cause the harm that occurred? If the harm is a natural and probable result of the act, proximate cause is established. Intervening factors matter only if they are unforeseeable and superseding, which can break the chain in some cases—but that is not a blanket rule. The eggshell skull rule shows liability for the full extent of damages, not a reduction in liability, so it doesn’t support cutting proximate cause. And the chain of causation is central to liability, not irrelevant. So foreseeability best describes proximate cause.

Proximate cause hinges on foreseeability: would a reasonable person anticipate that the defendant’s conduct could cause the harm that occurred? If the harm is a natural and probable result of the act, proximate cause is established. Intervening factors matter only if they are unforeseeable and superseding, which can break the chain in some cases—but that is not a blanket rule. The eggshell skull rule shows liability for the full extent of damages, not a reduction in liability, so it doesn’t support cutting proximate cause. And the chain of causation is central to liability, not irrelevant. So foreseeability best describes proximate cause.