What test do courts typically apply to determine causation in negligence cases?

In negligence cases, courts primarily utilize the "but for" test to establish causation. This test assesses whether the harm would have occurred in the absence of the defendant's actions. If it can be shown that the injury would not have happened "but for" the defendant's negligence, then causation is established, linking the defendant's conduct directly to the plaintiff's harm.

The "but for" test is essential because it helps to clarify the necessary connection between the negligent act and the resulting injury, ensuring that only those instances where the defendant's actions are relevant are considered as causative. This method emphasizes the importance of direct causation and serves as a foundational principle in tort law regarding negligence.

Other tests, such as the foreseeability test and the proximity test, play roles in determining different aspects of negligence, but they do not specifically address causation in the same way the "but for" test does. The reasonable person test is more focused on the standard of care expected from a defendant rather than establishing a causal link between actions and consequences. Thus, the "but for" test remains the most critical standard for determining causation in negligence cases.