Causation

Question 1

In causation what must it be proved?

Answer 1

That D’s conduct lead to the prohibited result

Question 2

What must it be shown to establish causation?

Answer 2

Factual causation
Legal causation
no NAI

Question 3

What was the legal principle in Pagett?

Answer 3

D’s conduct need not be the only cause or even the main cause so long as his/her actions contributed significantly

Question 4

What test is used for factual causation?

Answer 4

But for test- but for the actions of D, would the consequence have occured?
If yes then no causation

Question 5

What was the judgement in White?

Answer 5

No factual causation- heart attack broke the chain of causation

Question 6

What was the judgement in Dalloway?

Answer 6

Although D’s cart was being driven negligently, the death would still have happened

Question 7

What test is applied for legal causation?

Answer 7

De minimis test

Question 8

What main case demonstrates the de minimis test?

Answer 8

Kimsey

Question 9

What was the judgement in Kimsey?

Answer 9

Judge decided D’s driving need not be the substantial cause of death and that there was something more than a slight or trifling link

Question 10

What does substantial mean in law?

Answer 10

More than minimal

Question 11

What was the judgement in Marchant v Munz?

Answer 11

Not satisfy the de minimis test

Consequence would have happened anyway as V was driving at 80mph

Question 12

What was the principle shown in Adams?

Answer 12

Acceleration principle- doesn’t matter if V doesn’t have long to live, still murder

Question 13

What was the principle in Pitts?

Answer 13

Although the victim jumped into the river the reaction was reasonable

Question 14

What questions do the jury consider in escape situations?

Answer 14

Was it reasonably foreseeable that D would act as he did?
If yes then no NAI
If V acted in totally unforeseen way then no NAI

Question 15

What test was established in Roberts?

Answer 15

Daftness test

Question 16

What was the principle in Roberts?

Answer 16

The girls actions were reasonable and proportionate and D was responsible for her actions

Question 17

What was the principle in Marjoram?

Answer 17

V’s actions reasonably foreseeable as she was in fear and on the 3rd floor

Question 18

What was the principle in Mackie?

Answer 18

It should be reasonably foreseeable that frightening a 3 year old at the top of the stairs would result in falling/death

Question 19

What is the principle in Jordan?

Answer 19

The wound was not an operating and substantial cause of death
Allergy to the drug that caused death

Question 20

What is the principle in Smith?

Answer 20

Doctor failed to realise the seriousness of the case but the original wound was still operating and substantial therefore D was liable

Question 21

What is the principle in Cheshire?

Answer 21

Not to excuse liability unless:
the negligent treatment was so independent of D’s
the negligent treatment was so potent in causing death that Cheshire’s actions were insignificant

Question 22

Which medical negligence case is regularly followed?

Answer 22

Cheshire

Question 23

What was the principle in Malcherek?

Answer 23

If doctors turn of a life support machine there is no NAI

Question 24

What is the principle in McKechnie?

Answer 24

Injuries that D had caused had prevented any operation on the ulcer
Must take victim as you find them

Question 25

What is established in Blaue?

Answer 25

Thin Skull Rule

Question 26

What is the principle in Kennedy?

Answer 26

Voluntary act by D broke the chain of causation