click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Causation
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Chain of causation | Ds conduct must cause the consequence there must be no intervening act to break the chain |
| Factual causation | But for test But for Ds action the consequence would not have happened |
| case for factual causation | White |
| Legal causation | Ds conduct must be the operating and substantial cause of the outcome |
| case for legal causation | Smith |
| Thin skull rule | Take your victims as you found them if v has a pre-existing medical or physical condition or belief which makes the injury more serious D is still liable |
| Case for think skull rule | Blaue |
| Intervening acts | Novus Actus Interveniens must be independent of Ds conduct 1.act of a 3rd party 2.medical treatment 3.victims own act 4.natural but unpredictable event |
| What is an act of a 3rd party | New independent act which is more serious than Ds original act |
| case for act of a 3rd party | Benge |
| Medical treatment | unlikely to break chain unless palpably wrong |
| Case for medical treatment | smith or jordan |
| Life support Machine | switching off a life support machine does not break the chain of causation |
| Case for life support machine | Malcherek |
| Vs own act | If V acts in reasonable way -chain not broken If Vs reaction is unreasonable-chain is broken |
| Vs own act cases | reasonable-Roberts unreasonable-Williams |