A driver negligently ran a red light and collided with a pedestrian who was crossing the road at the crosswalk. Minutes before the accident, the pedestrian had decided to walk to the grocery store instead of taking the bus, which might have avoided the collision. In determining whether the driver's actions caused the pedestrian's injuries, what test is primarily used to establish causation?
The correct answer is the 'but for' test, which asks whether the harm would have occurred without the defendant's conduct. In this case, the test considers whether the pedestrian's injuries would have occurred if the driver had not negligently run the red light. The fact that the pedestrian chose to walk instead of taking the bus is irrelevant under the 'but for' test. The 'substantial factor' test is occasionally used in cases with multiple potential causes, but it is not the primary method for determining causation in a straightforward case like this. 'Foreseeability' is a factor in proximate cause, not causation in fact, and 'intervening causes' refer to events that occur between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiff’s injury.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What does the 'but for' test involve in legal terms?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does the 'substantial factor' test differ from the 'but for' test?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What role does foreseeability play in determining causation?