Unit 5 - Legal causation

Question 1

Discuss the basics of legal causation.

Answer 1

• Legal Causation determines if the harm is closely linked to the defendant’s actions to justify holding them legally responsible, avoiding liability for every possible outcome.
• In essence, factual causation establishes a direct link, while legal causation ensures that link is strong enough for legal liability.

Question 2

What are the six approaches ?

Answer 2

• Flexible approach.
• Adequate approach.
• Direct consequences.
• Intent.
• Reasonable foreseeability.
• Novus Actus intervienes.

Question 3

Discuss the flexible approach.

Answer 3

• There isn’t a universal standard for all cases; instead, the court looks at whether the relationship between the conduct and harm is close enough.
• The court balances fairness, reasonableness, and justice, even if harm is directly related and foreseeable, the court can use discretion based on these considerations.

Question 4

Discuss the adequate approach.

Answer 4

• If the result is unusual or unexpected, it might not be considered legally caused by the act.
• This approach can be criticized for being rigid and not distinct enough from the concept of reasonable foreseeability.
• In Daniels it was held that the advantage of using adequacy is that it helps distinguish legal causation from negligence more clearly than just relying on foreseeability.

Question 5

Discuss direct consequences.

Answer 5

• Speaks more to factual causation.
• Limited to physical injury.
• Liability for direct conduct of person.
• Liability not limited to foreseeable consequences.

Question 6

Discuss intent.

Answer 6

• Just because a consequence was intended does not automatically determine liability.
• Each case should be evaluated to see if the link between the conduct and the intended result is strong enough for liability, considering fairness and policy.
• Even if the intended consequence is foreseeable, other policy considerations might affect whether liability is imposed.

Question 7

Discuss reasonable foreseeabilty.

Answer 7

• Question is whether the defendant should have reasonably foreseen the consequences that resulted from his/her conduct.
• This test does not require that one foresees all the harm or the full extent, or that one sees the specific harm.
• One foresees the general type of harm that occurred.
• Also, not requirement to see the precise way the harm occurred.

Question 8

Discuss novus actus intervienes.

Answer 8

• A novus actus interveniens is an independent event that occurs after the wrongdoer’s actions and either causes or significantly contributes to the harm.
• This event can disrupt the chain of causation, either breaking the factual or legal connection between the original act and the resulting harm.
• It is important to note that a novus actis interveniens will only be considered as such if the event was not reasonably foreseeable.

Question 9

What are the forms of novus actus intervienes?

Answer 9

• Force majeure (unexpected events like natural disasters).
• Plaintiff’s own actions (faulty actions by the person harmed).
• Actions by a third party (independent actions of someone else).