To prove negligence, which element must establish that harm was caused specifically by the breach of duty?

To establish negligence, it's essential to demonstrate that a breach of duty directly caused the harm suffered by the plaintiff. This is known as the "direct cause" element. Simply having a duty and a breach of that duty is not sufficient to prove negligence; there must be a clear connection established between the breach and the resultant harm.

In a legal context, "direct cause" refers to the requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant's actions (or failure to act) were the critical link in the causal chain leading to the injuries or damages claimed. This means that if the breach had not occurred, the harm would not have happened, thereby establishing the necessary causation.

While the duty and dereliction (or breach) are fundamental to the negligence claim, they do not independently demonstrate that harm resulted from the breach; it is the "direct cause" that solidifies the case. Similarly, "damages" refers to the actual losses or injuries suffered by the plaintiff, but without establishing a direct cause linking the breach to the damages, the case for negligence remains incomplete. Thus, the emphasis on "direct cause" is pivotal in proving that the breach of duty specifically resulted in the harm experienced.