Two part test. 1. Factual causation, 'But For' test [White] 2. Legal causation - based on morality, can the consequence be said to be fairly D's fault? [Pagett]
1 of 21
What is the de minimus principle?
The law ignores trivialities, D's acts or omissions must provide more than a minimal contribution [Kimsey]
2 of 21
[Kimsey]
More than a slight or trifling link.
3 of 21
What is novus actus interviniens?
A new act that intervenes.
4 of 21
Types of novus actus interviniens?
What V does (daftness test, unforseeable way, thin skull, self neglect, deliberate voluntary acts), third party actions, unpredictable but natural event.
5 of 21
[Pagett] NAI - third party act
D used pregnant girlfriend as a shield. Police returned fire and killed the girl. Although police were trained to use the guns, it was foreseeable that they would return D's fire. Did not break chain of causation
6 of 21
[Watson] NAI - third party act
D broke into an elderly mans home and The police arrived and Moyler suffered a heart attack and died 90 minutes after the initial break in. His conviction was quashed as it could not be established that the break in was the cause of the heart attack.
7 of 21
Actions of V themselves [Roberts]
D picked up a female hitchhiker who jumped out of the car after sexual advances. The C of A decided that Vs reaction to the threat was a reasonable one and that D was responsible for her injuries.
8 of 21
Test for daftness test?
‘was V’s reaction the natural result of what D said and did, in the sense that it was something that could reasonably have been foreseen as the consequence of what D was saying or doing?’
9 of 21
[Williams and Davis] Actions of Vs themselves.
Picked up a hitchhiker who jumped out of the car at 30mph and died due to being in fear of being robbed. Manslaughter conviction quashed by CA as victim's act was not foreseeable and disproportionate.
10 of 21
[Blaue] Thin skull rule
Refused a blood transfusion due to being a Jahovah's witness. Guilty as murder as you must take your victim as you find them.
11 of 21
[Holland] Actions of V's - self neglect
D deliberately cut mans finger. IT became infected and required amputation but V delayed. and died of blood poisoning. D liable for mans death despite V's extreme behaviour.
12 of 21
[Dear] Actions of V's themselves - self neglect.
D attacked man with knife. V did not get treatment and made injury worse. Died from blood loss. D liable even though V made things worse.
13 of 21
[Kennedy] - Actions of Vs themselves
D gave syringe of heroin to man who self injected and died. Manslaughter conviction quashed as self injection broke chain of causation.
14 of 21
[Marjoram] - Foreseeable act
Was being shouted abuse at and as door was kicked open, he jumped out of a window and was badly hurt. Convicted as V's reaction was foreseeable.
15 of 21
[Malcherek and Steel] - Life support
Life support switched off doesn't break chain of causation if switched off bona fide. 'Bizarre that switching off life support machine would break the chain of causation'.
16 of 21
Palliative care? [Adams]
If the main aim of the treatment is for suffering then the doctor is not liable for cutting life short.
17 of 21
Emergency Medical Treatment.
Usually does not break the chain of causation [Smith] [Cheshire] [Jordan]
18 of 21
[Smith]
'Thoroughly bad' 'operating and substantial cause' 'merely part of history' - Doesn't break chain of causation.
19 of 21
[Cheshire]
D shot a man who needed surgery and a tracheotomy. 2 months later V died of complications. D was liable as acts contributed significantly to death.
20 of 21
[Jordan]
D stabbed a man who almost recovered but was given antibiotics without checking and V died. D not liable as doctors conduct was 'palpably wrong'.
21 of 21
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
What is the de minimus principle?
Back
The law ignores trivialities, D's acts or omissions must provide more than a minimal contribution [Kimsey]
Comments
No comments have yet been made