Causation Flashcards
What is an ‘absolvitor’?
A court decree in a civil action, in favor of the defender. Decree of absolvitor renders a case res judicata. When a defender obtains decree of absolvitor he is said to be assolizied. Absolvitor contrasts with decree of dismissal, which does not render a case res judicata and accordingly allows a pursuer to bring a fresh action on the same ground.
There has to be a causal connection between…
The accused’s actions and the wrongful result.
What is the ‘but for’ test and what is the latin phrase?
Sine qua non.
If it was not for the accused actions, the results would not have happened.
What happened in Lourie v HM Advocate?
Accused broke into an elderly women’s house and stole her bag. She later died of a heart attack. Prosecution had to prove strain on heart was caused by theft. The conviction was quashed on appeal.
What is the difference between causation in law and causation in facts?
Causation in fact is actions that contributed the result.
Causation in law is actions that are legally relevant for a criminal conviction.
What is the difference between the causation of an event and a condition of an event?
A condition is a normal event or circumstance which is necessary for the result to occur, but cannot be said to have positively caused it.
Why is proximity relevant to causation?
Proximity is to safeguard against individuals whose acts are too remote from the victim’s death.
Are the legal principles of causation strict legal rules or guidelines?
More guidelines.
What is the ‘think skull’ rule?
Means that the accused will be criminally liable if the death result from some pre-existing weakness in the victim.
What happened in R v Blaue?
Found that court does not distinguish between physical and psychological characteristics.
Here, accused stabbed victim who was a Jehovah’s witness then refused blood transfusion. It did not matter that the victim refused blood transfusion because it did not break the chain of causation.
Can the victim break the chain of causation?
Yes as was seen in Joseph and Mary Norris where the victim acted in a way that got his wounds infected. This could not be said to be the accused’s fault.
Is the victim under a duty to mitigate harm?
The victim can neglect their own well-being and the accused will be held liable. Therefore, determining if the victim’s actions were reasonable will determine criminal liability.
What happens if the actions of the accused induced the victim to commit suicide?
Unclear in Scotland what would happen as never happened in Scotland. Would most likely depend on reasonable foreseeability and proportionality.
What is a ‘novus actus interveniens’?
An event that breaks the chain of causation.
Will a naturally occurring infection to a wound be a sufficient novus actus interveniens?
No the accused will still be held liable. For a subsequent infection to constitute a novus actus interveniens it will need to be independent of the original action.
