Which term describes a scenario where an injury would not have occurred without a particular act?

The scenario described refers to the idea of "Actual Cause," which is essential in establishing liability in tort law. Actual cause, also known as "cause-in-fact," generally means that the harm suffered by the plaintiff can be directly traced to the actions of the defendant. Utilizing the "but-for" test, one determines that but for the defendant's act, the injury would not have occurred. This establishes a clear link between the defendant's conduct and the injury incurred.

In contrast, other terms like proximate cause address the foreseeability and the indirect consequences of an action, rather than the direct link established by actual cause. Indirect cause typically refers to a situation in which a separate intervening act contributes to the injury, which does not apply in cases where the initial action is the sole reason for the injury. Intervening cause refers to an occurrence that happens after a defendant's negligent act and produces an injury, which further complicates the causation since it can break the chain between the defendant's action and the plaintiff's injury. Therefore, in the context of establishing injury linked directly to an action, "Actual Cause" is the appropriate term.