Causation

Factual Causation

Causation is proved using a two part test
The first part is Factual Causation, proved using the 'but for' test
White (1910) it could not be said that but for D poisoning his mothers milk, she would not have died, because she had a heart attack before she drunk the milk; therefore D is not the factual cause of her death and causation is not proved.

1 of 5

The second part of the test is legal causation
'D's conduct must be more than a minimal cause of the consequence (Kimsey), 'and he must contribute significantly to it (Pagett).''
Any break in the chain by a NIA means D's blame ends
NIA can include - poor medical treatment, V's actions in escaping, V's bad health/self neglect, an actions of a 3rd party and an event (an act of god).

2 of 5

the poor medical treatment must be so independent of D's act and ''in itself so potent in causing the consequence.''
Jordan (1956) 'palpably wrong treatment' V was stabbed, before he was discharged the hospital gave him the wrong medicine which put fluid on his lungs, V died. The chain was broken as his wound was merely part of history and the medicine killed him not his wound.
Smith (1959) {punctured lung} medics did not realise how bad V's injuries were, they dropped him a few times on their way to the clinic, he died. The wound is what killed him not the poor medical treatment so chain is not broken.
Cheshire (1991) the courts said only in extraordinary circumstances will poor medical treatment break the chain of causation, Doctors are only trying to fix the mess that somebody else made.

3 of 5

Daftness test - if it is foreseeable that V could behave in this was and reasonable then D is liable and the chain is not broken.
To break the chain V's act must be unforeseeable and unreasonable
Roberts (1971); it was foreseeable and reasonable for V to jump from a moving vehicle when D was making sexual advances towards her, chain not broken and D is liable
Williams & Davis (1992); it was unforeseeable and unreasonable for V to jump from a moving vehicle when the passangers were trying to take £5 from him, chain broken, D not liable.

4 of 5

If V has a mental/physical condition or a belief that makes them more liable to harm, the D remains liable for the consequence of their actions.
Dear (1996) {severed artery}; V ***** D's daughter, D attacked V stabbing him, in hospital V unpicked his stitches and he died, the chain was not broken and D was liable.
Blaue (1975) a jehovah witness refused a life saving blood transfusion after being stabbed, because of her beliefs, she died, the chain was not broken; so D still liable.

5 of 5