What must a plaintiff establish to show direct cause in tort law?

In tort law, to demonstrate direct cause, the plaintiff must establish a clear link between the defendant's act and the injury suffered. This means that the plaintiff needs to show that the defendant's actions were a direct and proximate cause of the harm experienced. Essentially, the plaintiff must provide evidence that the harm would not have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct.

This concept is crucial, as it delineates the relationship between the wrongful act and the resulting injury, establishing the defendant's liability. The ability to trace the injury back to the defendant's specific actions is fundamental in tort cases, allowing the court to hold the defendant responsible for the consequences of their behavior.

In contrast, other options touch on different aspects of tort law but do not directly address the requirement of establishing a direct causative link. For instance, proving intent to cause harm is relevant in intentional torts but not necessary for establishing direct cause in negligence cases. Similarly, while foreseeability is important in determining whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the actions, it does not in itself create the causal link required for establishing direct cause. Additionally, considering all possible intervening causes may be part of a broader analysis but does not directly establish causation from the defendant’s actions to the