causation evaluation Flashcards
how is factual causation assessed
but for test - Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington hospital
what is the but for test
but for D’s actions would the harm have occurred - D not liable if harm would’ve occurred regardless
clear
provides straightforward and logical way to establish causation WHICH ensures consistency
focus on responsibility
limits liability to cases where D’s breach directly caused harm WHICH prevents unfair outcomes
oversimplification
may oversimplify complex cases involving multiple causes SO important details may be overlooked
injustice in medical cases
Gregg v Scott - ‘but for’ test denied claimants compensation if the breach merely reduces the chance of recovery rather than being the sole cause.
how is legal causation assessed
intervening acts, remoteness of damage and egg shell skull rule
intervening acts
Legal causation can be broken by an intervening act that is independent and unforeseeable
remoteness of damage
damage must not be too far removed from the act/ omission of the D - The Wagon Mound: Not liable because the type of damage was unforeseeable.
foreseeability
harm must be reasonably foreseeable - Hughes v Lord Advocate, the type of harm was foreseeable, even if the exact circumstances were not.
fair
prevents defendants from being unfairly held liable for highly remote or unforeseeable consequences, ensuring decisions are equitable.
flexible
allows courts to consider the circumstances of each case, leading to more just outcomes, as in Jolley v Sutton LBC.
unpredictable
reliance on policy considerations and judicial discretion can lead to inconsistent outcomes.
complex
Determining whether an intervening act breaks the chain of causation can be challenging and subjective, leading to uncertainty in cases
