Which of the following is NOT a requirement for establishing the tort of negligence?

In order to establish the tort of negligence, certain key elements must be present. These include that the defendant owed a legal duty to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff suffered an injury or damages, and that the defendant's breach of duty was a proximate cause of the injury. The notion of foreseeability is also critical in determining whether the defendant could reasonably anticipate the potential for harm.

The option referring to the defendant's action as a cause for the plaintiff's injury accurately captures a fundamental component of negligence, known as "causation." For a successful negligence claim, it is essential that there is a direct link between the defendant's negligent actions and the harm suffered by the plaintiff. This concept establishes that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm.

Thus, the correct answer indicates that "both the plaintiff and the injury must have been reasonably foreseeable" is not a required element for establishing negligence. While foreseeability does come into play in assessing the duty and breach aspects of a negligence claim, it is not a standalone requirement necessary for proving all elements of the tort itself.

In summary, option C highlights a misunderstanding about what constitutes direct causation in a negligence claim, which must indeed connect the defendant's actions to the injury suffered