Chain of causation is the link between the defendant's act and the consequences occured as a result.
This can be either broken by the Victim or the unforseeable events. For example R v Robberts, where V jumped from a driving car, when D tried to sexually abuse V. D was held liable as the victim's reaction was reasonable. The chain of causation would have been broken if V's reaction was unreasonable.
The thin skull rule, which states take your victim as you find him e.g. R v Blaue, where V was stabbed with a knife and had lost alot of blood. she refused any blood transfusion as it was against her religion, and later she died as a result. Even though she could've been saved if she had the blood transfusion and it was V who refused it. D was still hold liable for V's death.
Chain of causation is broken where a new intervening act/ event takes place that becomes the main reason for the consequence than the initial act/event. e.g. R v Jordan where V was taken to hospital after being stabbed by D. However he recovered and later died of poor medical treatment 'palpably wrong', which broke the cain of causation.
Comments
No comments have yet been made