Tuesday, 22 October 2019
Causation
1. Why do we need law relating to questions of causation? Should consequences matter?
- law isn’t only about punishing criminals it is also about rectifying wrongs.
2. Distinguish factual from legal causation. Why is factual causation both necessary and
insufficient?
- Factual causation is the unbroken sequence of events that results in an outcome being
caused by one or more (in)actions. “but for” test. ... Legal causation requires the
prosecution or plaintiff to prove that the defendant is liable in law for whatever happened.
- Finding a blameworthy defendant (factual causation). Factual causation, mechanical way.
It is insufficient because a lot of people would be held liable.
- Must be a substantial and operative cast.
3. What is a novus actus interveniens? What sort of acts or events might this entail?
- Negligence. A Latin term for an intervening unforeseeable event that occurs after the
defendant's negligent act and operates to precipitate or worsen the plaintiff's loss. The
defendant is not liable for the loss precipitated or aggravated by such an event.
- Act that breaks causation, it makes the cause not substantive operation cause.
- Natural act ; act of victim. - Natural events can break the chain of causation, but only if
extraordinary or unforeseeable Bush v Commonwealth - victim shot by D, went to
doctors and contracted Scarlett fever while there.
4. Why do subsequent omissions by third parties not sever the chain of causation?
- criminal actors cannot expect others to take the fall for them.
5. What is the “eggshell skull” rule? Do you agree with this principle? Reflect on both
arguments in favour and against.
- “eggshell skull” - It means that a defendant is liable for any damages resulting from the
injury they caused the claimant
6. Critically evaluate the case of R v Blaue in light of the various possible approaches to legal
causation. How would the case be decided in light of the following principles:
a. The 'eggshell skull’ rule - Omissions by either the victim or third parties will not sever the
chain of causation
1
Causation
1. Why do we need law relating to questions of causation? Should consequences matter?
- law isn’t only about punishing criminals it is also about rectifying wrongs.
2. Distinguish factual from legal causation. Why is factual causation both necessary and
insufficient?
- Factual causation is the unbroken sequence of events that results in an outcome being
caused by one or more (in)actions. “but for” test. ... Legal causation requires the
prosecution or plaintiff to prove that the defendant is liable in law for whatever happened.
- Finding a blameworthy defendant (factual causation). Factual causation, mechanical way.
It is insufficient because a lot of people would be held liable.
- Must be a substantial and operative cast.
3. What is a novus actus interveniens? What sort of acts or events might this entail?
- Negligence. A Latin term for an intervening unforeseeable event that occurs after the
defendant's negligent act and operates to precipitate or worsen the plaintiff's loss. The
defendant is not liable for the loss precipitated or aggravated by such an event.
- Act that breaks causation, it makes the cause not substantive operation cause.
- Natural act ; act of victim. - Natural events can break the chain of causation, but only if
extraordinary or unforeseeable Bush v Commonwealth - victim shot by D, went to
doctors and contracted Scarlett fever while there.
4. Why do subsequent omissions by third parties not sever the chain of causation?
- criminal actors cannot expect others to take the fall for them.
5. What is the “eggshell skull” rule? Do you agree with this principle? Reflect on both
arguments in favour and against.
- “eggshell skull” - It means that a defendant is liable for any damages resulting from the
injury they caused the claimant
6. Critically evaluate the case of R v Blaue in light of the various possible approaches to legal
causation. How would the case be decided in light of the following principles:
a. The 'eggshell skull’ rule - Omissions by either the victim or third parties will not sever the
chain of causation
1
