In first-party residential property cases involving several perils, courts utilize the "but also for" test to ascertain whether confirmed danger is a cause-in-fact of this reduction. To achieve that, process of law conduct a "idea experiment" and imagine what would occur if a person of perils didn't occur. If losing might have taken place anyhow with or without incident of the eliminated danger, then eliminated danger fails the "but for" test. What this means is the fact that the removed peril is not a cause-in-fact of loss, so that it cannot be selected whilst the proximate cause. See in addition Proximate cause.