MBE Rules · Criminal Law
Causation — actual and proximate
The rule
Actual cause: but-for the defendant's conduct, the harm would not have occurred. Proximate cause: harm is the natural and probable consequence; intervening acts break the chain only if unforeseeable. Eggshell-skull and victim's pre-existing condition do not break the chain.
In plain English
To be responsible for a crime, the defendant's actions must directly lead to the harm, and the harm must be a foreseeable result of those actions.
Worked example
The defendant sets a fire, and smoke causes a nearby driver to crash. The crash is a foreseeable result of the fire, so the defendant is responsible for the harm.
Memory hook
CAUSE: But-for + natural flow. Actual cause needs direct link; proximate cause needs foreseeability.
The trap
Students think: any intervening act breaks causation. Wrong, because only unforeseeable acts break it. The actual test is foreseeability.
How examiners test it
MBE setup: defendant's act + victim's pre-existing condition or minor intervening act. Trap: assuming chain breaks. Answer: chain stays unless act is unforeseeable.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.