LT W4 – REMOTENESS
The negligence equation
Duty,
Breach,
Causation,
No defence.
Legal causation
Causation rules are about identifying a link between D’s breach and
C’s loss.
o Factual causation: is there in fact a link between the breach and
the loss?
o Legal causation: is it the right sort of (/a sufficiently close) link?
Alternative: these rules aren’t to do with causation—they are rather
rules concerned with determining the scope or extent of D’s liability for
the harms s/he has caused
Two doctrines
Novus actus interveniens (intervening acts, or events which break the
chain of causation):
o D acts negligently towards C
o Subsequently, some person acts (often a third party, T, but
sometimes C him/herself) or some natural event occurs, and this
act or event contributes to C’s injury
o Sometimes the intervening act/event will be treated as ‘breaking
the chain of causation’, meaning D won’t be liable for the injury
o Multiple causation:
The novus actus doctrine only applies where both D’s
breach and the intervening act/natural event are but for
causes of C’s injury.
If D’s breach isn’t a but for cause, the claim fails at the
factual causation stage.
If the intervening act/the natural event isn’t a but for
cause, the act/event makes no difference to C’s injury, so
there is no reason for them to affect D’s liability to C
Remember: the causation element only requires that D’s
breach is a cause of C’s injury
The negligence equation
Duty,
Breach,
Causation,
No defence.
Legal causation
Causation rules are about identifying a link between D’s breach and
C’s loss.
o Factual causation: is there in fact a link between the breach and
the loss?
o Legal causation: is it the right sort of (/a sufficiently close) link?
Alternative: these rules aren’t to do with causation—they are rather
rules concerned with determining the scope or extent of D’s liability for
the harms s/he has caused
Two doctrines
Novus actus interveniens (intervening acts, or events which break the
chain of causation):
o D acts negligently towards C
o Subsequently, some person acts (often a third party, T, but
sometimes C him/herself) or some natural event occurs, and this
act or event contributes to C’s injury
o Sometimes the intervening act/event will be treated as ‘breaking
the chain of causation’, meaning D won’t be liable for the injury
o Multiple causation:
The novus actus doctrine only applies where both D’s
breach and the intervening act/natural event are but for
causes of C’s injury.
If D’s breach isn’t a but for cause, the claim fails at the
factual causation stage.
If the intervening act/the natural event isn’t a but for
cause, the act/event makes no difference to C’s injury, so
there is no reason for them to affect D’s liability to C
Remember: the causation element only requires that D’s
breach is a cause of C’s injury
