Which statement best describes causation in fact?

Which statement best describes causation in fact?

• A. It requires proving that the breach was the sole cause of damages.
• B. It requires showing but-for the breach, the injury would not have occurred.
• C. It requires foreseeability.
• D. It requires proving damages.

Answer: (B)

Causation in fact asks whether the plaintiff’s injury would have happened even without the defendant’s breach. The but-for standard means: but for the breach, would the harm have occurred? If the answer is yes (the injury would have happened anyway), there is no us to causation in fact; if the answer is no (the injury would not have occurred without the breach), the breach is a cause in fact. This is why the statement that but-for the breach, the injury would not have occurred is the best description. Foreseeability relates to proximate (legal) causation, not the actual factual link. Requiring the breach to be the sole cause goes beyond causation in fact, which looks for a necessary condition rather than necessarily the only cause. And proving damages is about the loss amount, not the underlying fact of causation.

Causation in fact asks whether the plaintiff’s injury would have happened even without the defendant’s breach. The but-for standard means: but for the breach, would the harm have occurred? If the answer is yes (the injury would have happened anyway), there is no us to causation in fact; if the answer is no (the injury would not have occurred without the breach), the breach is a cause in fact. This is why the statement that but-for the breach, the injury would not have occurred is the best description. Foreseeability relates to proximate (legal) causation, not the actual factual link. Requiring the breach to be the sole cause goes beyond causation in fact, which looks for a necessary condition rather than necessarily the only cause. And proving damages is about the loss amount, not the underlying fact of causation.