Which statement describes the effect of a superseding factor on proximate causation?

• A. A superseding factor that breaks the chain of causation can negate liability.
• B. An intervening act that is entirely foreseeable always negates liability.
• C. Intervening acts never affect liability.
• D. The defendant's original act is never a superseding factor.

Answer: (C)

In proximate causation, liability can be cut off by a superseding (intervening) cause if that event is unforeseen and independent of the defendant’s conduct. When the intervening act is not foreseeable and acts as a new and independent cause of the harm, it breaks the causal chain and the defendant is not liable for the damages that result from that act. Foreseeable intervening acts, or those within the risk created by the defendant, typically do not sever the chain, and the defendant remains responsible for the consequences.

So the best description is that a superseding factor can break the chain of causation and negate liability when it is unforeseeable and independent of the defendant’s act. The other statements are incorrect because they either overstate the effect of foreseeability, claim intervening acts never affect liability, or misstate the role of the original act.