Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Law A2 > Causation > Flashcards

Causation Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

What must be proven in homicide cases?

A

The act has caused the consequences.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

When is the defendant responsible for murder?

A

Where his acts are both a factual and legal cause of the victims death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is Factual Causation?

A

Would the victim have died but for the defendant’s conduct? Defendant not liable if V would have died anyway.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What case is associated with Factual Causation?

A

White (1910)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What happened in White (1910)?

A

Son poisoned mother by adding cyanide to drink, before it could take effect, mother had a heart attack and died. Since the defendant would have died but for the defendants actions, he was founds guilty of attempted murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is Legal Causation?

A

Defendant’s act must be more than a minimal cause of death. Asks whether the defendant is morally to blame.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What case is associated with Legal Causation?

A

Marchant and Muntz (2004)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What happened in Marchant and Muntz (2004)?

A

Motorcyclist impaled himself on a grab attached to a loading vehicle. Farmer + Driver not morally responsible since cyclist would’ve died even if the grab was concealed by a guard.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What must the defendants actions be to find them guilty of murder?

A

The operative and substantial cause of death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the first general rule of Causation?

A

The defendant must take is victim as he finds him - Thin Skull Rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What two cases are associated with the Thin Skull Rule?

A

Hayward (1908)

Blaue (1975)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What happened in Hayward (1908)?

A

D chased wife into street and kicked her, she died due to a persistent thyrus gland, which means she could die from experiencing a strong emotion. D found guilty of causing death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in Blaue (1975)?

A

D attacked 18 y/o with a knife, needed a blood transfusion, declined due to being a Jehovah witness and died. Court held she would not have died but for the defendants stab wound, found guilty of causing death.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the second general rule of Causation?

A

An intervening act may break the Chain of Causation (novus acts interveniens)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What are the five sub-sections of the second rule of Causation?

A 
A) Medical Negligence
    a) Turning off life support
B) Actions of Victim
C) Victim Self-Neglect
D) Actions of Third Party
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the 4 cases associated with Medical Negligence?

A

Jordan (1956)
Smith (1959)
Cheshire (1991)
Mellor (1996)

17
Q

What happened in Jordan (1956)?

A

Hospital administered incorrect medical treatment to a patients whos wound had almost healed, they died. Court declared treatment to be ‘palpably wrong’, intervening act broke the chain of causation.

18
Q

What happened in Smith (1959)?

A

Victim and defendant fight in army barracks, D stabbed V several times. Fellow solider carried him to medical wing but dropped him a few times. Received very poor treatment and died. Court held the wound to be the operative and substantial cause of death, found guilty.

19
Q

What happened in Cheshire (1991)?

A

Argument in fish and chip shop, D shot V, doctors performed a tracheotomy. Windpipe was too narrow, victim died. Court held that the original wound was the operative and substantial cause of death, found guilty of murder.

20
Q

What happened in Mellor (1996)?

A

Mellor attacked 71 year old man, he died 2 days later. D argued V’s pneumonia resulted in death (lack of oxygen). Mellor found guilty of manslaughter.

21
Q

What is the case associated with Turning off life support?

A

Malcherek, Steel (1981)

22
Q

What happened in Malcherek, Steel (1981)?

A

M stabbed his wife, S attacked women. Both victim ended up on life support which was turned off. Both convicted of murder.

23
Q

What are the three cases associated with Actions of Victim?

A

Roberts (1972)
Williams and Davis (1992)
Marjoram (1999)

24
Q

What happened in Roberts (1972)?

A

D gave victim lift and made sexual advances, she jumped out of the car and injured herself. Held that Roberts action were the operative and substantial cause of injuries. Convicted of ABH. Introduced the daftness test.

25
Q

What happened in Williams and Davis (1992)?

A

D gave hitchhiker a lift, then robbed him. Victim jumped out of the car and died of head injuries. Court held act of escaping was not proportional to the threat, there was a break in the chain of causation. Not guilty.

26
Q

What happened in Marjoram (1999)?

A

Marjoram kicked down door of hostel and caused victim to jumped out of the window. Held that a reasonable person could foresee such a consequence. Guilty of GBH.

27
Q

What two cases are associated with Victim Self Neglect?

A

Holland (1841)

Dear (1996)

28
Q

What happened in Holland (1841)?

A

Defendant cut victims finger with an iron instrument, became infected, needed an amputation, caused lockjaw, victim died. Court held chain of causation was not broken as the wound that caused death was inflicted by the defendant.

29
Q

What happened in Dear (1996)?

A

Defendant slashed victim with knife. Victim removed stitches after treatment, D convicted of murder. Appealed that victim committed suicide, dismissed appeal, injuries inflicted were an operative and substantial cause of death.

30
Q

What case is associated with Actions of Third Parties?

A

Pagett (1983)

31
Q

What happened in Pagett (1983)?

A

Police shot at Pagett, trying to arrest him, D used a girl as a human shield. Girl was injured, held that Pagett caused the injuries as police’s reaction was a reasonable response to Pagett’s actions.

32
Q

What is the first evaluation of Causation?

A

Clarkson + Keating argue causation has developed on a case basis, coherent approach is lacking, causation is no more than a ‘moral reaction’.

33
Q

What is the second evaluation of Causation?

A

Causation is shaped by public policy, reflects the need to protect institutions, e.g. hospitals and police.

34
Q

What is the third evaluation of Causation?

A

Contrasts with Dias (2001), where D supplied drugs to victim who self-injected, died of overdose. Held that self-injection broke the chain of causation. Defendant had no responsibility.

35
Q

What is the fourth evaluation of Causation?

A

Decision in Blaue (1975) can be criticised for harshness, especially where principle is extended to religious beliefs.

Law A2 (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions