Legal and Factual causation

What is causation?

relationship between a person’s actions and the result of those actions.

What is factual causation?

direct link between a defendant's actions and the harm suffered by the claimant. It is established by applying the 'but for' test, which asks whether the result would have occurred without the defendant's actions.

What is a test for factual causation?

but for test

if the defendant’s actions didn’t take place would it still have happened

or if for the defendant’s actions, then it took place.

What happened in R v White (1910)?

The defendant put poison into the evening drink of the victim, his mother, with the intention of killing her. The victim drank a few sips of the drink and then fell asleep. She did not wake up, however the medical evidence was that she had died of a heart attack rather than as a result of the poison. The defendant also gave evidence that he had not intended to kill her by a single dose but had planned to deliver multiple doses over a longer period of time. The defendant was convicted of attempted murder.

What is legal causation?

Legal causation, also known as proximate causation, refers to the causal connection between a defendant's actions and the harm suffered by a claimant. To establish legal causation, it must be proven that the defendant's actions were a substantial factor in causing the harm and that the harm was foreseeable. In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury^.

What is the chain of causation?

links the elements of negligence together. The chain of causation is the complete link from the defendant’s negligent action (or inaction) to the victim’s injury.

What are intervening acts?

uch acts can be divided into three categories: actions by the claimant himself, actions by a third party, and natural events. (novus actus intervenus)

1. In criminal law, if a defendant stabs a victim and they die, but a novus actus (intervening act) occurs in between, the defendant may be absolved of criminal liability for murder.

2. Natural or instinctive interventions made in the "heat of the moment" do not break the chain of responsibility. For example, if X throws a lit firework into a market, and A throws it to B, who then throws it to C (who is hit and injured), X is still responsible and liable for C's injury.

what is act of the victim? what happened in r v roberts?

the chain of causation will not be broken unless the victim's actions are disproportionate or unreasonable in the circumstances:

R v Roberts (1971)

After a party the male defendant R, gave the female victim a lift in his automobile.  The victim and the defendant had not met before.  The defendant began making sexual advances towards the victim which were rejected before attempting to pull off her coat.  The victim then opened the door and jumped out of the moving vehicle sustaining injuries as a result.  The defendant was charged with sexual assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm and was convicted at trial of assault occasioning actual bodily harm but acquitted of sexual assault.  The defendant appealed.

R v Williams and Davis (1992)

The defendants picked up a hitchhiker who was on his way to Glastonbury festival.  The defendants then attempted to rob the victim who became agitated and afraid and in this mental state jumped out of the moving vehicle which was travelling at 30 mph.  The victim hit his head and died of his injuries.  The defendants were charged with manslaughter.  What had happened in the car to cause the victim to jump out was not certain.

What is act of a third party?

when another person kills the victim, not the defendant

r v pagett (third-party)

The appellant shot at a police officer who was trying to arrest him, and subsequently attempted to use a pregnant teenage girl standing nearby as a human shield to defend himself against retaliation by the officer. The officer returned fire, killing the girl. At trial the defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted of manslaughter, which he appealed.

r v jordan (1956) act of third party

worked for air force, stabbed a man because of disturbance, got operated, during, waterlogged, victim died 8 days later.

broke chain of causation as victim and doctor’s actions are separate.

smith (1959)

defendant was soldier, fought with comrade, guy stab him, while carried dropped, doctor negligent, died cause of injuries, gave cpr when had punctured lung.

chain of causation not broken, as it is foreseeable he would die from wound.

r v hart (1986) a natural but unpredictable event

defendant assaulted a victim, leaving her unconscious on a beach, below high-tide mark, as tide came in she drowned.

didn’t break chain of causation as it is foreseeable

what is the thin skull rule?

if the victim has something unusual about their physical or mental state which makes an injury more serious then they are liable for a more serious injury.

you must take your victim as you find them.

r v blaue (1975) thin skull rule

victim refused defendant’s sexual advances, stabbed victim four times, taken to hospital, needed blood transfusion, but refused as part of jehovah’s witnesses, part of faith don’t believe in it, she died, he was charged with manslaughter.