Which form of causation requires showing that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach?

• A. Actual causation
• B. Proximate causation
• C. Contributory causation
• D. Comparative causation

Answer: (A)

The key idea is causation in fact, proved by the “but-for” test. Actual causation asks whether the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s breach. If the breach is essential to the injury—removing the breach would have prevented the harm—then there is actual causation. If the injury would have happened anyway, there’s no actual causation, even if the breach helped bring it about.

Distinguishing this from proximate causation clarifies why the other concepts don’t fit the question. Proximate causation deals with whether the harm was a foreseeable consequence of the breach and whether there are limits on liability; it’s about the legal connection, not whether the injury would have occurred without the breach. Contributory and comparative causation concern the plaintiff’s own actions or the allocation of fault among multiple parties, not the basic fact of whether the injury was caused by the defendant’s breach.