Legal and Factual causation Flashcards
What are the three medical negligence cases?
-R V Cheshire
-R V Jordan
-R V Malchereck and Street.
-R V Smith
R V Smith?
-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
R V Cheshire?
- Treatment falling within the ordinary band of incompetency is foreseeable.
- ‘So independent and a cause of death in itself’
R V Jordan?
Palpably wrong- breaking the chain of causation.
- This is called NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS.
R V Malchereck and street
- 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.
What does legal causation require?
that the harm must result from a culpable (blameworthy) act.
What are some important phrases to use in an exam?
- Operating and significant.
- Chain of causation.
- So independent.
What is factual causation?
-The D must be the factual cause of the D’s injuries.
-‘but for test’- R V White/
R V White
- ‘but for test’
- kill mother to get inheritance- poison fails- unrelated heart attack.
How is legal causation proved?
- 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.
What are the escape/ victim cases?
- R V Williams
- R V Roberts
R V Roberts
- ‘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.
R V Williams
- 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.
Which cases go with an act of a third party?
-R V Padgett.
R V Padgett
-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.