Legal and Factual causation Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

What are the three medical negligence cases?

A

-R V Cheshire
-R V Jordan
-R V Malchereck and Street.
-R V Smith

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

R V Smith?

A

-fight in barracks-man stabbed. Dropped multiple times by paramedics+ poor medical treatment.
-the original act was still the operating and significant cause of death/ the result. Aka. The De minimis rule

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

R V Cheshire?

A
  • Treatment falling within the ordinary band of incompetency is foreseeable.
  • ‘So independent and a cause of death in itself’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

R V Jordan?

A

Palpably wrong- breaking the chain of causation.

- This is called NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS.

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

R V Malchereck and street

A
  • At the time of death, was the original injury still an operating and substantial cause of death?
  • Turning off life support doesn’t break chain.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What does legal causation require?

A

that the harm must result from a culpable (blameworthy) act.

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

What are some important phrases to use in an exam?

A
  • Operating and significant.
  • Chain of causation.
  • So independent.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What is factual causation?

A

-The D must be the factual cause of the D’s injuries.
-‘but for test’- R V White/

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

R V White

A
  • ‘but for test’
  • kill mother to get inheritance- poison fails- unrelated heart attack.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How is legal causation proved?

A
  • D’s actions must be a significant contribution’/ have been a ‘substantial and operative cause.
  • Don’t have to be main/ only cause of harm- De Minimis rule
  • Needs to be a direct link between act + injury
  • Intervening acts may break the chain.

DMR - Defendant’s actions were a more than minimal cause of the result.

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

What are the escape/ victim cases?

A
  • R V Williams
  • R V Roberts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

R V Roberts

A
  • ‘so daft or so unexpected that no reasonable person could be expected to for see it.’- her actions jumping out of the car were RF.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

R V Williams

A
  • V had been given a lift and felt his wallet being stolen and jumped out of the car and died.
  • His actions did break the chain of causation because they were not reasonably foreseeable.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Which cases go with an act of a third party?

A

-R V Padgett.

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

R V Padgett

A

-pregnant teen as human shield.
-The polices response was RF so the original act of the defendant was the operating and significant cause of the result.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What is meant by the think skull rule/ test?

A

-‘take your victim as you find them’
-Liable for the full extent of injuries if the victim has a MC.that could make the outcome worse.

17
Q

Which case goes with the thin skull rule/test?

A

R V Blaue

18
Q

R V Blaue

A

-Jehovah’s witness girl died as she refused a blood transfusion on religious grounds after being stabbed.
-thin skull rule includes religious beliefs.