Factual and legal causation Flashcards
Factual causation case
Barnett 1969
Barnett 1969
Assesses whether the damage would not have occurred ‘but for’ their negligence
Assesses whether the damage would not have occurred ‘but for’ their negligence
Barnett 1969
DS v North Lincolnshire NHS Trust 2016
The act or omission must be the cause of the negligence beyond reasonable doubt
The act or omission must be the cause of the negligence beyond reasonable doubt
DS v North Lincolnshire NHS Trust 2016
Legal causation
D’s act is the legal cause of C’s injury if it was foreseeable that damage would occur
The Wagon Mound 1961
established remoteness test
established remoteness test
The Wagon Mound 1961
What is the remoteness test?
- Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
- It cannot be too remote from the negligent act
- Type of damage must be reasonably foreseeable
- It cannot be too remote from the negligent act
Remoteness test
Bradford 1967
D will be liable if the type of injury was reasonably foreseeable, even though the precise way in which it happened was not
D will be liable if the type of injury was reasonably foreseeable, even though the precise way in which it happened was not
Bradford 1967
Smith v Leech Brain 1962
If the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable, but is more serious because C had a pre-existing condition, D is liable for all subsequent consequences
If the type of harm is reasonably foreseeable, but is more serious because C had a pre-existing condition, D is liable for all subsequent consequences
Smith v Leech Brain 1962
Novus actus interveniens meaning
Intervening act that breaks the chain of causation
