Under the 'but-for' causation standard, the result would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.

Under the 'but-for' causation standard, the result would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.

• A. The result would have occurred regardless of the defendant's conduct.
• B. The result would not have occurred if the defendant acted only negligently.
• C. The result would not have occurred but for the defendant's conduct.
• D. The result depends on the defendant's intent.

Answer: (C)

But-for causation means the outcome would not have happened if the defendant’s conduct had not occurred. This standard asks whether the defendant’s action was a necessary condition for the result. The statement given directly matches that idea: the result would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct, so the conduct is a but-for cause. It doesn’t depend on negligence or intent; those aspects aren’t required for but-for causation. Saying the result would have occurred regardless or that it depends on intent would not fit the but-for test.

But-for causation means the outcome would not have happened if the defendant’s conduct had not occurred. This standard asks whether the defendant’s action was a necessary condition for the result. The statement given directly matches that idea: the result would not have occurred but for the defendant’s conduct, so the conduct is a but-for cause. It doesn’t depend on negligence or intent; those aspects aren’t required for but-for causation. Saying the result would have occurred regardless or that it depends on intent would not fit the but-for test.