Legal Causation
- Created by: DeVanté
- Created on: 31-03-14 11:24
View mindmap
- Causation
- Factual Causation
- Factual Causation is established by applying the 'But for' Test
- If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the defendant is not liable.
- This asks, 'but for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occured
- If the answer is no, the defendant can be found to be liable if their actions are deemed the legal cause
- R v White
- Legal Causation
- 1. Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act.
- R v Dalloway 1847
- Does no apply if offence is one of strict liability (R v Williams 2011)
- 2.The defendants action need not be the sole cause of the resulting harm, it must be more than minimal:
- R v Benge 1865
- 3. There Must be NO Novus Actus Interveniens (Intervening Acts.)
- An Intervening Act is one that breaks the chain of causation
- 3a. Act of a third party.
- The Act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable.
- R v Pagett 1983
- Medical Intervention
- Where Medical intervention contributes to death, the courts have been inconsistent, generally it is said the treatment has to be 'Palpably Wrong' to break causation
- R v Jordan 1956
- R v Smith 1959
- R v Cheshire 1991
- R v Smith 1959
- The Act of a third party will generally break the chain of causation unless the action was foreseeable.
- 3b. The act of the victim
- Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victim's actions are disproportionate or unreasonable
- R v Roberts 1971
- R v William & Davies 1992
- Where the act is of the victim, the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victim's actions are disproportionate or unreasonable
- 1. Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act.
- Thin Skull Rule (Egg shell skull rule)
- Under the thin skull rule, the defendant must take his victim as he finds him.
- This means if he has a particular vulnerable victim he is fully liable for consequences to them even if an ordinary person would not have suffered such severe consequences
- R v Hayward
- This rule applies irrespective of whether the defendant was aware of the condition
- R v Holland
- The Thin Skull rule also applies where the victim has refused medical treatment which would have saved them
- R v Blaue
- The Thin Skull rule also applies where the victim has refused medical treatment which would have saved them
- Factual Causation
Comments
No comments have yet been made