Causation

Question 1

Basic test for legal causation

Answer 1

• significant contribution

Question 2

What is the premise of significant contribution and what case confirmed it

Answer 2

• D’s behaviour made a significant contribution to the result.
• confirmed in Cheshire
• decision made clear that there may be multiple legal causes of the same result

Question 3

What is an intervening act

Answer 3

• action of victims and third parties that can break the chain of causation
• can stop the actions of a D being a legal cause of the outcome

Question 4

What’s the general principle for what constitutes an intervening act

Answer 4

• the original act of the D must remain an operative cause of the relevant consequence (eg death)
• in cases involving medical practitioner intervention courts are likely to place considerable emphasis on the operative cause principle

Question 5

Give three cases where there is intervention of medical practitioners

Answer 5

• Smith
• Cheshire
• Jordan

Question 6

Explain interventions of victims and third parties considering the chain of causation

Answer 6

• rationale grounded in individual autonomy

Question 7

Case of Pagett in chain of causation

Answer 7

• D took his pregnant girlfriend hostage
• used her as a human shield and fired a shotgun at the police
• a police officer instinctively fired back and hit and killed the D’s girlfriend
• not considered to be a voluntary act and did not break the chain of causation
• Pagett was liable for causing the victims death

Question 8

What’s the leading case on the voluntariness of intervening acts

Answer 8

• Kennedy

Question 9

Case of Kennedy

Answer 9

• D handed a syringe full of her ion to his friend
• his friend injected himself and later died
• court held that the actions of the V in taking and injecting the drug were free, voluntary and informed.
• the actions of the victim therefore broke the chain of causation, and the D’s action were not a legal cause of death

Question 10

When will the chain of causation not be broken

Answer 10

• if the actions of the victim not free, voluntary and informed

Question 11

Some case of free, voluntary and informed actions and causation

Answer 11

• Robelo - D sold the chemical DNP as a weight loss drug knowing that it could have toxic side effects if consumed by a human - vic died after taking eight capsules in one day
• Field - D deceived v into thinking they were in a loving relationship, d manipulated v into changing his will, whilst planning for the v to die an alcoholics death, v’s body was found to contain high blood alcohol levels and a drug for insomnia

Question 12

Which cases must the def take the victim as he finds them

Answer 12

• Dear - D slashed the V, V refused to go to hospital at that point looked like bleeding had stopped. Two days later he died of blood loss. Suicide note left with him, medical evidence showed wounds had been reopened and he had failed to take steps to stop it bleeding
• Wallace - D threw acid over V. Terrible injuries. After 14 months in hospital the V asked his life to be ended. Belgian docs lawfully committed voluntary euthanasia. Court held however that it was open to the jury to conclude that this was not a voluntary act
• Blaue - V, a Jehovah witness, refused to have a blood transfusion and died. Held: D must ‘take victim as he found them’

Question 13

What is the leading case in foreseeability

Answer 13

• Roberts

Question 14

Case of Robert’s

Answer 14

• whilst driving the D made sexual advances to his passenger and tried to remove her coat
• she jumped out the moving car and suffered ABH
• court held that to break the chain of causation the actions of the V must be both voluntary and unforeseeable
• the V would need to do something ‘ so daft… or so unexpected… that no reasonable man could be expected to foresee it’
• in this case, even if the V actions could be considered voluntary, they were foreseeable and did not break the chain of causation, and the D was guilty of causing ABH

Question 15

Another case to do with foreseeability

Answer 15

• Tarasov
• D attacked V, who fled and locked himself in a first floor bathroom.
• an hour later he climbed out of the bathroom window and sustained a fatal fall to the ground below
• these actions were held to be forseeable, as the desperate attempt to escape fell ‘ writhing the range of reasonable responses’

Question 16

How does foreseeability apply to interning acts of nature

Answer 16

• also applies
• Israr Muhammed
• D driving on motorway with his family and starts racing another car at over 100mph
• when his tyre burst the car veers off the carriageway and into a tree
• D three year old son died
• the dangers of driving at this speed were foreseeable and the burst tyre did not break the chain of causation