What does the 'but-for' causation test state?

• A. Damage would occur regardless of the defendant's breach.
• B. Damages would not have occurred but for the defendant's breach.
• C. Damages would be too remote.
• D. The defendant is liable if foreseeability exists.

Answer: (D)

The key idea is factual causation: a breach is a cause in fact if the harm would not have happened but for the breach. In practical terms, you imagine removing the breach and see whether the damage would still occur. If the answer is yes—the damage would still occur without the breach—then the breach did not cause the harm. If the answer is no—the damage would not have happened absent the breach—then the breach is a factual cause.

This is distinct from remoteness of damage or foreseeability. Saying damages are too remote speaks to legal limits on recovery after a factual cause exists, not to whether the harm would have occurred without the breach. And foreseeability relates to whether the type of harm was reasonably predictable, which governs liability scope rather than the basic fact of causation.