What must be established about a negligent act for it to be considered the direct cause of an injury?

For a negligent act to be established as the direct cause of an injury, it is essential to demonstrate that there is an uninterrupted chain of events linking the defendant's conduct to the plaintiff's harm. This concept is often referred to as "cause-in-fact" or "actual cause," which means that but for the negligent action, the injury would not have occurred.

To illustrate, consider a scenario where a driver runs a red light and collides with another vehicle, resulting in injury to the passenger of that vehicle. If it can be shown that the driver's negligent act (running the red light) directly led to the accident and subsequent injuries without any intervening factors, then the driver is directly responsible for the harm caused.

The other choices do not correctly identify this necessary condition. While alternative causes might complicate the causal relationship, they do not establish a necessary connection to find liability. A latent injury does not play a role in establishing direct cause and usually pertains to claims involving harm that manifests after a delay. Consensual liability is also unrelated, as it involves agreements rather than establishing causation related to negligence. Thus, an uninterrupted chain of events is paramount to proving that a negligent act directly caused an injury.