Factual and Legal causation Flashcards
What must be proven for causation?
An unbroken chain of causation between D’s voluntary act and the consequence
Factual causation
D cannot be found guilty unless the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ their conduct
D cannot be found guilty unless the consequence wouldn’t have happened ‘but for’ their conduct
Factual causation
Factual causation cases
- Pagett 1983
- White 1910
- Pagett 1983
- White 1910
Factual causation
The 3 tests of legal causation
- foreseeability
- operating and substantial
- the thin skull rule
- foreseeability
- operating and substantial
- the thin skull rule
The 3 tests of legal causation
What is the thin skull rule?
D must take V as they find them
D must take V as they find them
The thin skull rule
What does the thin skull rule mean?
Any particular vulnerabilities of the victim, such as religious beliefs or medical conditions, cannot break the chain of causation
Thin skull rule case
Blaue 1975
Blaue 1975
Thin skull rule case
The actions of doctors in the delivery of medical treatment cannot break the chain of causation unless…
it is so potent and independent that it renders D’s actions insignificant
Can the actions of doctors in the delivery of medical treatment break the chain of causation?
No, unless it is so potent and independent that it renders D’s actions insignificant
Operating and substantial cause
D’s conduct must have made a ‘significant contribution’ to the consequence
D’s conduct must have made a ‘significant contribution’ to the consequence
Operating and substantial cause
If there was an intervening act, D must have foreseen what to continue the chain of causation?
The intervening act
If the V’s reaction to D’s conduct is foreseeable and reasonable, then the D is guilty for any harm sustained by V in this response
- Roberts 1971
- Williams 1992
- Roberts 1971
- Williams 1992
If the V’s reaction to the D’s conduct is foreseeable, reasonable and natural, then the D is guilty for any harm sustained by V in this response
In what case was V’s reaction to D’s actions NOT foreseeable, reasonable and natural?
Williams 1992
In what case was V’s reaction to D’s actions foreseeable, reasonable and natural?
Roberts 1971
Novus actus interveniens
- Victim’s own actions
- Medical treatment
- Actions of a third party
- Victim’s own actions
- Medical treatment
- Actions of a third party
Novus actus interveniens
Novus actus interveniens:
V’s own actions
Williams 1992
Novus actus interveniens:
Medical treatment
Jordan 1956
Jordan 1956
Novus actus interveniens:
Medical treatment
Case where medical treatment broke the chain of causation
Jordan 1956
Case where medical treatment did not break the chain of causation
Smith 1959
Smith 1959
Medical treatment did not break the chain of causation
