A Level Law Practice Exam 2025 – 400 Free Practice Questions to Pass the Exam

The principle that governs third-party actions in relation to causation is that the chain of causation remains unbroken if the actions are reasonably foreseeable. This principle is rooted in the idea that if an intervening event or action by a third party is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct, it can still be linked back to the original act, thus maintaining the causation chain.

For instance, if a defendant’s negligence sets off a series of events that lead to harm, and those subsequent actions are a natural and foreseeable outcome of the initial negligence, the original actor can still be held liable. This means that as long as the third-party actions are not completely unforeseen or out of the realm of reasonable prediction, liability can remain with the initial defendant.

The other concepts do not account for the nuances of causal links. For example, suggesting that third-party actions will always break the chain of causation implies a rigidity that does not reflect judicial reasoning in cases where foreseeability plays a critical role. Similarly, the notion that D's conduct must be directly responsible for V's injuries overlooks scenarios in which indirect actions or consequences can still establish a causal link. Lastly, limiting causation to only direct actions by D fails to recognize the complexities of proximate cause,