What test determines whether damage would have occurred without the negligent act?

The 'But For' test is a fundamental legal standard used in tort law to establish causation in negligence cases. This test assesses whether the harmful outcome would have occurred 'but for' the actions of the negligent party. In other words, it examines if the damage or injury would have happened without the negligent act. If the answer is no—that is, the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's conduct—then the defendant's actions are deemed a significant factor in causing the damage.

This test is pivotal in proving causation because it helps to connect the dots between the negligent act and the resulting damages. For instance, if a driver runs a red light and collides with another vehicle, the 'But For' test would support the claim that the collision would not have occurred 'but for' the driver's negligent decision to ignore traffic signals.

The other options do not relate directly to this causation assessment. The standard of care refers to the degree of caution and concern an ordinarily prudent person should exercise in specific circumstances. Contributory negligence deals with situations where the injured party may have contributed to their own injury, which can affect their ability to recover damages but does not determine causation on its own. A liability limitation agreement is a contract that limits