Question

For the defendant to be liable in a negligence case, it must be proven that the type of harm caused by the defendant must have been reasonably foreseeable. This is referred to as

a. proximate cause.
b. duty of due care.
c. factual cause.
d. breach.

Answer 1

In negligence cases, the foreseeability of harm is linked to the legal concept of proximate cause, which is necessary to establish liability when a defendant's actions lead to damages. This differs from duty of due care, factual cause, and breach, which are related but distinct legal concepts.

Step-by-step explanation:

For the defendant to be liable in a negligence case, such as when a manufacturer knowingly sells a defective automobile, it must be proven that the type of harm caused was reasonably foreseeable. This is referred to as proximate cause. Proximate cause involves demonstrating that the harm caused was a direct result of the defendant's actions and that the harm was foreseeable. In contrast, duty of due care refers to the obligation to prevent harm, factual cause is about the actual cause of harm, and breach relates to the failure to meet one's duty of care.

Using a counter example situation, if an automobile manufacturer continues to sell a car model with known brake system defects likely to cause accidents, and injuries or deaths do occur, the manufacturer may be held liable due to prior knowledge of the defect and its foreseeable consequences. Such a situation highlights the significance of proximate cause in negligence cases.