Legal and Factual causation

Question 1

What are the three medical negligence cases?

Answer 1

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

Question 2

R V Smith?

Answer 2

-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

Question 3

R V Cheshire?

Answer 3

• Treatment falling within the ordinary band of incompetency is foreseeable.
• ‘So independent and a cause of death in itself’

Question 4

R V Jordan?

Answer 4

Palpably wrong- breaking the chain of causation.

- This is called NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS.

Question 5

R V Malchereck and street

Answer 5

• 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.

Question 6

What does legal causation require?

Answer 6

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

Question 7

What are some important phrases to use in an exam?

Answer 7

• Operating and significant.
• Chain of causation.
• So independent.

Question 8

What is factual causation?

Answer 8

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

Question 9

R V White

Answer 9

• ‘but for test’
• kill mother to get inheritance- poison fails- unrelated heart attack.

Question 10

How is legal causation proved?

Answer 10

• 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.

Question 11

What are the escape/ victim cases?

Answer 11

• R V Williams
• R V Roberts

Question 12

R V Roberts

Answer 12

• ‘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.

Question 13

R V Williams

Answer 13

• 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.

Question 14

Which cases go with an act of a third party?

Answer 14

-R V Padgett.

Question 15

R V Padgett

Answer 15

-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.

Question 16

What is meant by the think skull rule/ test?

Answer 16

-‘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.

Question 17

Which case goes with the thin skull rule/test?

Answer 17

R V Blaue

Question 18

R V Blaue

Answer 18

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