A more thorough explanation:

Definition: The But For Rule is a legal test used to determine if a defendant is responsible for a particular event. It asks whether the event would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions. In other words, if the defendant had not acted, would the event still have happened?

Example: Let's say that a driver named Drivewild was speeding and lost control of their car, causing an accident. If we apply the But For Rule, we can ask: "Would the accident have happened if Drivewild had not been speeding?" If the answer is no, then Drivewild's actions were the proximate cause of the accident, and they are responsible for any resulting damages.

Another Example: Imagine that a person slips and falls on a wet floor in a grocery store. If the store had put up a "wet floor" sign, the person might not have fallen. Applying the But For Rule, we can ask: "Would the person have fallen if the store had put up a sign?" If the answer is no, then the store's failure to put up a sign was the proximate cause of the person's fall, and they may be liable for any resulting injuries.

These examples illustrate how the But For Rule is used to determine causation in legal cases. By asking whether an event would have occurred "but for" the defendant's actions, we can determine whether they are responsible for any resulting damages or injuries.