In determining proximate cause, which statement is most accurate?

• A. Proximate cause is independent of the relationship between act and harm.
• B. Proximate cause requires that the nurse personally intended to harm the patient.
• C. Proximate cause requires a reasonable cause-and-effect link between the act and harm.
• D. Proximate cause is only about foreseeable financial loss.

Answer: (C)

Proximate cause focuses on whether there is a legally reasonable link between the nurse’s action and the harm that occurred. It’s not about the nurse’s intent or about events being unrelated; it’s about foreseeability and the natural, probable consequences of the act. If the harm would be a foreseeable result of the nurse’s act, and the act and the harm are closely connected in the causal chain, the nurse can be held liable.

The correct statement captures this idea by describing a reasonable cause-and-effect link between the act and the harm. It emphasizes that liability hinges on how closely the act is connected to the injury, through a foreseeable, natural consequence, rather than on intent or on unrelated outcomes like financial loss.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: Proximate cause does not require intent to harm, so needing the nurse to have personally intended harm (an element of intent) is incorrect. It also isn’t about an independent or purely unrelated relationship; there must be a causal connection between the act and the harm. And while damages can include financial losses, proximate cause is about the link between act and harm in a broader sense, not limited to financial outcomes.