Which statement is true about the two types of causation: cause in fact and proximal cause?

• A. Cause in fact requires a direct link; proximal cause is about foreseeability
• B. They are the same concept
• C. Proximal cause means always direct injury
• D. Cause in fact only applies to intentional harm

Answer: (A)

Cause in fact, or but-for causation, asks whether the injury would have occurred if not for the defendant’s conduct. It looks for a direct, actual link in the causal chain: remove the act, and the harm would not have happened. Proximate cause is a legal standard about whether the harm is a foreseeable consequence of the act and whether the chain of causation is legally too remote or broken by intervening events. In practice, a defendant can be liable for cause in fact if their action would have caused the harm anyway, but liability under proximate cause depends on foreseeability and policy considerations about which harms the law should punish. So the statement that cause in fact requires a direct link and proximate cause is about foreseeability accurately reflects how these concepts differ. The other options aren’t correct because causation in fact is not about intentional harm only, proximate cause does not require direct injury in all cases, and they are not the same concept.