Causation

Question 1

Decribe

Causation in general

Apart of Causation

Answer 1

Prosecution must prove D ultimate cause of outcome to have liability.

Governed by Common Law.

An intervening act, if it breaks the Chain of Causation, will render D not liable.

Question 2

Decribe

Factual Causation

Pagett, White

Apart of Causation

Answer 2

D will only be guilty if.

Pagett - Test - But for the D's actions, the V wouldn't have suffered the outcome.

White - If connsequence to V would've happened regardless than not the factual cause.

Question 3

Decribe

Legal Causation

Kimsey

Apart of Causation

Answer 3

Can be more than once act contributing to overall outcome.

Kimsey - Legal Causation test - Was the D's actions more than a minimal cause of the consequence?

Question 4

Describe

Thin Skull Rule

Blaue

Apart of Causation

Answer 4

If D has an injury making action of D more severe than the D must,

Blaue - Take the victim as they find them.

Question 5

Describe

Intervening Acts in general.

Apart of Causation

Answer 5

Chain of Causation is where there is a direct link of D conduct to eventual conduct.

An intervening Act can break this, if this act sufficent enough and serious enough to make D a minimal cause of the outcome.

Question 6

Decribe

Medical Treatment

Jordan

Apart of Causation

Answer 6

Jordan - Medical Mistreatment will be a intervening act, if doctors action was palpably wrong

Question 7

Describe

Actions of Third Party

Rafferty

Apart of Causation

Answer 7

Rafferty - A third party can break chain of causation, if they intend to make the situation worser. (Medical Professional is not included)

Question 8

Describe

V’s Own Actions

Roberts

Apart of Causation

Answer 8

Roberts - If D causes V to react in forseeable way, then V's injury will be caused by D, under the Daftness test

Question 9

Describe

V’s own Self Negligence

Dear

Apart of Causation

Answer 9

Dear - Even when V own negligent behaviour, contributes to the eventual consequence, this will still likely not break the chain of causation

Question 10

Apply to an Exam Question

Flip

Apart of Causation

Answer 10

Causation

But for the D’s actions (state what the D did), the V wouldn’t have suffered their death/injury. Explain why.

The D’s actions (state what the D did) were more than a minimal cause of the V’s injury/death because…refer to any other cause, but explain if the D is still not just a minimal cause. Remember they don’t have to be the substantial cause, but they might be.

If the thin skull rule is relevant, explain what the V’s condition is and why that may have made them more susceptible to harm. However, this will not affect the D’s liability and they must take the V as they find them.

Intervening Acts
Was the medical treatment palpably (seriously) wrong? Why? Explain how the Dr should’ve acted.

If the V’s actions contributed to their injuries/death were their actions daft and unexpected? If so they will break the chain of causation, if not the D will still be liable.

If there was a third party involved, state what their actions were and if they intended to make the situation worse. If so, explain the D will not be liable and there will be a break in the chain.

If the V was negligent, explain why. This will rarely break the chain of causation for the D.