In negligence law, the 'but-for' test is most related to which concept?

The 'but-for' test is a fundamental principle in establishing causation within negligence law. Specifically, this test helps to determine whether a defendant's actions can be legally regarded as the cause of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. To satisfy the 'but-for' test, the plaintiff must show that the injury would not have occurred but for the defendant’s negligent conduct. This establishes a direct causal link between the defendant’s actions and the resulting harm.

For example, if a person drives negligently and causes an accident, the 'but-for' test would assess whether the accident would have happened had the person not driven negligently. If the answer is no, then causation is established, which is essential for the success of a negligence claim.

The other concepts mentioned do not align with the essence of the 'but-for' test. Intent to cause harm relates to intentional torts rather than negligence. Negligent infliction pertains to specific types of harm that can result from negligence without proving a physical injury, while limitation periods set the time frame within which a claim must be brought, which is unrelated to establishing causation in negligence.