Causation Flashcards
Which of the following best describes the “but for” test in factual causation?
A. The defendant must be the only cause of the result
B. The result must have occurred due to the defendant’s blameworthiness
C. The act must be unforeseeable and independent
D. But for the defendant’s act, the result would not have occurred
D. But for the defendant’s act, the result would not have occurred
Explanation: This is the core test for factual causation. If the result would not have happened “but for” the defendant’s conduct, causation is established (R v White).
Which case illustrates that a defendant can still be liable even when others also contributed to the result?
A. R v White
B. R v Benge
C. R v Blaue
D. R v Dalloway
B. R v Benge
Explanation: In R v Benge, the defendant’s negligence in railway work was a substantial cause of death, even though others also made mistakes.
Which of the following could break the chain of causation?
A. A natural event that is extraordinary and unforeseeable
B. The victim refusing medical treatment
C. The victim having a rare medical condition
D. A police officer firing in self-defence
A. A natural event that is extraordinary and unforeseeable
Explanation: Natural events only break the chain if they are truly unforeseeable and extraordinary.
What does the thin skull rule mean in causation?
A. The defendant’s act must be the sole cause of the harm
B. The court ignores the victim’s pre-existing conditions
C. The defendant must take the victim as they find them
D. The victim’s conduct must be foreseeable
C. The defendant must take the victim as they find them
Explanation: Under the thin skull rule, the defendant is responsible even if the victim has a hidden condition or belief that worsens the harm.
The defendant stabs the victim. The victim receives poor medical treatment at hospital and dies. The stab wound was still contributing to death. Is the defendant legally liable for the death?
A. Yes, because the original wound was still a substantial cause
B. Yes, but only if the treatment was excellent
C. No, the medical negligence breaks the chain
D. No, because the victim’s condition worsened due to new factors
A. Yes, because the original wound was still a substantial cause
Explanation: As in R v Smith and R v Cheshire, medical negligence does not usually break the chain if the original injury remains significant.
A defendant threatens a woman with a gun. She runs into the road in panic and is hit by a car. Which is the most accurate legal outcome?
A. The driver is the only cause of death
B. The woman’s act was not foreseeable, so the chain is broken
C. The defendant is not liable as he did not cause the car to hit her
D. The defendant is liable because her response was foreseeable
D. The defendant is liable because her response was foreseeable
Explanation: In R v Roberts, the victim’s response to a threat was not considered unreasonable. The chain remains intact if the response is foreseeable.
A man is slashed with a knife and receives treatment. He later reopens the wounds and dies. What is the likely legal result?
A. The defendant is not liable because the victim reopened the wounds
B. The defendant is liable if the original injury contributed to death
C. The defendant is liable only if the wounds were not healing
D. The victim’s actions were an independent act
B. The defendant is liable if the original injury contributed to death
Explanation: In R v Dear, even if the victim’s actions worsened the injuries, the defendant was still liable because his attack remained a significant cause.
The defendant supplies heroin to the victim, who injects himself and dies. What is the correct legal position?
A. The defendant is liable for causing the death
B. The defendant is liable only if the heroin was contaminated
C. The defendant is not liable because the victim injected himself
D. The defendant is liable because drugs are inherently dangerous
C. The defendant is not liable because the victim injected himself
Explanation: In R v Kennedy, the victim’s voluntary and informed act of injecting the drug broke the chain of causation.
A man lightly pushes another during an argument. Unknown to him, the victim has a rare heart condition and dies. What is the legal outcome?
A. The defendant is liable under the thin skull rule
B. The victim’s death is too remote to be blamed on the defendant
C. The chain is broken by the victim’s rare condition
D. The defendant is not liable unless the act was violent
A. The defendant is liable under the thin skull rule
Explanation: In R v Hayward, the defendant was held liable despite the victim’s unknown condition. You take your victim as you find them.
The defendant injures the victim, who later chooses euthanasia abroad due to permanent suffering. What factors should the jury consider?
A. Whether euthanasia was lawful in that country
B. Whether the defendant could foresee the decision to die
C. Whether the victim’s decision was free and informed
D. Both B and C
D. Both B and C
Explanation: In R v Wallace, the jury should consider whether suicide was reasonably foreseeable and whether the defendant’s act remained a significant cause.
A victim refuses life-saving surgery for religious reasons and dies from an otherwise treatable injury. What is the likely legal outcome?
A. The chain is broken due to the refusal
B. The defendant is liable under the thin skull rule
C. The doctor is liable for failing to override the refusal
D. The victim’s belief is unreasonable, so the chain is broken
B. The defendant is liable under the thin skull rule
Explanation: In R v Blaue, the refusal of a blood transfusion due to religious beliefs did not break the chain. The thin skull rule applies to beliefs too.
A train crash occurs due to several people’s errors: the signalman, the driver, and the defendant foreman. The crash causes deaths. Is the defendant liable?
A. No, too many people were involved
B. No, as the driver should have acted responsibly
C. Yes, if his negligence was a substantial cause
D. Yes, but only if he was solely responsible
C. Yes, if his negligence was a substantial cause
Explanation: In R v Benge, liability was upheld because the defendant’s act was a significant factor, even though others contributed.
