This Practice Note considers the legal element of the causation test. Livraison en Europe à 1 centime seulement ! 14× 14. Carslogie Steamship Co v Royal Norwegian Government [1952] 73, No. and its Licensors Where there has been issues of evidence and proof, the Courts have applied a different test looking at the contribution to the risk of damage or harm. Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] We looked closely, in Chapter 9, at some factual and proximate causation issues in contributory negligence cases. Law Of Torts (LW151) Uploaded by. Untill now, there has not been an attempt to harmonize the entire field of tort law in a consistent manner. Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Legal Causation 2020 Tort I Dr David Kwok Loss of a Chance • Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority (1987) • A boy Causation in European Tort Law follows the now-familiar Common Core model. The proof of causation in negligence cases. Découvrez et achetez Causation in European Tort Law. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation. Causation is an element common to all three branches of torts: strict liability, negligence, and intentional wrongs. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Somehow, that paragraph takes an entire year of law school to understand. In Barnett, the claim was dismissed because, even though the doctor was negligent, on the balance of probability the doctor’s failure to take reasonable care had not caused the defendant’s death. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. If a given risk could not have been reasonably anticipated, proximate cause has not been established, and liability will not be imposed. If the loss would not have occurred ‘but-for’ the defendant’s actions, the Courts will say as a matter of fact that the defendant caused the loss. The Oropesa [1943] See id. Factual Causation. Under prevailing tort law, in order to impose legal liability in tort, a court must find both factual and proximate causation. In Bonnington Castings, the House of Lords held the defendant was liable to the full extent for the claimant’s harm where their negligence was one of a number of sources of the damage but materially contributed to the injury. Haynes v Harwood is an example of a case where the claimant’s own act did not constitute a novus actus interveniens. Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449 (Fam): Should the standard of proof be different for vulnerable witnesses. View Legal Causation.pptx from LLAW 1005 at The University of Hong Kong. The measure of damages is determined by the nature of the tort committed and the type of injury suffered. The Courts usually apply the ‘but-for’ test to determine whether the act of the defendant factually ‘caused’ the claimant’s loss. For instance, in the law of product obligation, the courts have come to apply to the guideline of strict liability: the way that the respondent’s product caused the offended party harm is the main thing that matters. At the second stage the courts make an assessment of whether the link between the conduct and the … Where two events cause the same harm which requires the same cost of repair, the second defendant can not be said to have caused this loss. The Courts have to decide whether an intervening event has broken the chain of causation. Legal systems more or less try to uphold the notions of fairness and justice. Papers Vol 2 (Oxford, 1986) 159-213.Hereinafter, 'Causation'. Private nuisance. What breaks causation depends on whether the subsequent act is an act of nature, a third-party or the claimant. First, a tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a specific act must actually have resulted in injury to another. In its simplest form, cause in fact is established by evidence that shows that a tortfeasor's act or omission was a necessary … View Legal Causation.pptx from LLAW 1005 at The University of Hong Kong. The Courts have defined the test for causation, which is split into factual and legal causation. The English Common Law recognized no separate legal action in tort. Richard W. Wright, Causation in Tort Law, California Law Review, Vol. at 1775–76. Causation has two prongs. On different events, causation is the main necessity for legal liability. National University of Ireland Maynooth. Within tort law there are two types of causation: factual causation and legal causation (also known as remoteness). Barnett demonstrates that the defendant must cause the loss, and it is for the claimant to show this. Module. Papers Vol 2 (Oxford, 1986) 159-213.Hereinafter, 'Causation'. There may be implicit considerations as to who should reasonably bear the loss and who is in best position to manage the risk and insure against it. Tort of Nuisance. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969] To what extent do the rules on factual and legal causation help to achieve the general aims of tort law? The term proximate cause is somewhat misleading because it has little to do with proximity or causation. Start studying Tort: Legal Causation. That is because of #3, the concept of causation. Causation is only one segment of the tort. 1775–1803 Reprinted with permission of the publisher. They have also needed to determine the meaning of ‘loss’. For the chain of causation to be proved the defendant's breach of duty must have caused or materially contributed to the claimant's injury or loss. 1735, 1775 (1985). This Practice Note considers the legal element of the causation test. The second defendant is only liable for any extra damage caused. For guidance on the issues relevant in determining whether or not there is factual causation, see Practice Note: Tort claims—causation as a matter of fact. They have also needed to determine the meaning of ‘loss’. Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd [2008] Haynes v Harwood [1935] They opt for a broad approach that encompasses not only purely factual, so-called “but/for” causation (a test that asks whether the same accident would have happened if the defendant had behaved reasonably), but also situations where … In other words, the question asked is ‘but for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?’ If the answer to this question is yes, then causation cannot be shown, and vice versa. Therefore, a group of tort lawyers, the `European Group on Tort Law', proposes to address the fundamental questions underlying every tort law system. Tort law uses a ‘but for’ test in order to establish a factual link between the conduct of the defendant and the injuries of the claimant. The tort law causation module contains two chapters: causation, and intervening ants and remoteness. Omission liability is the liability for not doing a certain act that is required by the law. It is ultimately a matter of judgment in marginal and unusual cases, as to what extent a person should be liable for the consequence of his acts (and in some case omissions). It has persisted in the Restatement (Second) of Torts’ treatment of legal causation and cause-in-fact, ... Excerpted from “Causation in Tort Law,” California Law Review 73:6 (December 1985), pp. In other words, causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury. Within tort law there are two types of causation: factual causation and legal causation (also known as remoteness). In Negligence, a claimant must prove that the defendant's breach of duty owed caused the damage or injury suffered. In its simplest form, cause in fact is established by evidence that shows that a tortfeasor's act or omission was a necessary antecedent to the plaintiff's injury. Academic year. Infantino and Zervogianni begin by describing the scope of the project. If tort law becomes incapable of recognising important wrongs, and hence incapable of righting them, victims will be left with a sense of grievance and the public will be left with a feeling that justice is not what it should be. Tort law, or the area of law in which someone suffers harm and results in legal liability, can become extremely complicated once you get into the nuts and bolts. 4. This chapter examines factual causation doctrine in isolation and derives some rules for navigating this most intractable part of tort law. Tony Honore, 'Necessary and Sufficient Conditions in Tort Law' in David GOwen (ed), Philosophical Foundations of Tort Law (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 1995) 363-386at 383. Causation has two prongs. Damages for tortious acts generally fall into one of four categories: damages for injury to person, damages for injury to PERSONAL PROPERTY, damages for injury to real property, and PUNITIVE DAMAGES. Courts analyze this issue by determining whether the plaintiff's injury would have occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. Causation - All relevant cases in the law of tort which are needed for exams. Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (Wagon Mound) [1961], Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services [2003], Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1969], R (Freedom and Justice Party) v SS Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs: How Should International Law Inform the Common Law. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law. 1 Omission liability There are interesting philosophical questions with regard to omission liability as to whether it is noncausal or can be used to satisfy the legal requirement of causation. Law Application Masterclass - ONLY £9.99. Learn how to effortlessly land vacation schemes, training contracts, and pupillages by making your law applications awesome. View Factual causation PP slides (2).pptx from TORT LAW 29399 at University of Birmingham. Richard W. Wright, Causation in Tort Law, 73 Calif. L. Rev. Legal Causation In this section, we will look at cause-in-fact and legal causation and how they are both traditionally understood.Legal causation involves the use of legal principles to attribute responsibility to the factual causes of an injury and it is particularly helpful in resolving more complex types of cases. This is to decide whether the defendant is responsible for the claimant’s loss. Second, plaintiffs must establish that a particular tort was the proximate cause of an injury before liability will be imposed. For claims in the tort of negligence, the claimant must show that the defendant caused them a loss. Lawyers often discuss Summers v. But - in the case of tort at least - they operate in combination, and on occasions the latter aspect can seem to influence the former, or vice versa. It also provides a formidable challenge that the “Common Core of European Private Law” publishing project has now confronted as part of its ambitious endeavor to identify and analyze the commonalities and divergences that characterize European private law. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. The foundation of tort law in various Europen legal systems differ considerably. In law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. First, a tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a specific act must actually have resulted in injury to another. Terms of Use, Law Library - American Law and Legal Information, Tort Law - Intentional Torts, Breast Implant Lawsuits, Negligence, Strict Liability, Causation, Damages, Immunity. was a cause of an injury if and only if, but for the act, the injury would not have occurred. See Hart &Honoré, supra note 4, at 110 (“So when a negative answer is forthcoming to the question ‘Would Y have occurred if X had not?’ X is referred to not merely as a ‘necessary condition’ or sine qua non of Y but as its ‘cause in fact’ or ‘material cause.’”). When duty, breach, and proximate cause have been established in a tort action, the plaintiff may recover damages for the pecuniary losses sustained. University. The first, which is sometimes referred to as “factual causation”, “cause in fact”, or “but for cause”, is essentially concerned with whether the defendant’s fault was a necessary condition for he loss occurring. Legal Causation 2020 Tort I Dr David Kwok Loss of a Chance • Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority (1987) • A boy For guidance on the issues relevant in determining whether or not there is factual causation, see Practice Note: Tort claims—causation as a matter of … Legal causation: intervening acts. It highlights that a person is still the legal cause for loss even when it occurs due to a person’s response to a negligent act. In its simplest form, cause in fact is established by evidence that shows that a tortfeasor's act or omission was a necessary antecedent to the plaintiff's injury. 18/19 To demonstrate causation in tort law, the claimant must establish that the loss they have suffered was caused by the defendant. (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); Intervening acts, or novus actus interveniens, can break the chain of causation between the defendant and the victim. The word tort comes from the Latin term torquere, which means "twisted or wrong." The disarming yet deceptively complex topic of causation in tort law has long fascinated scholars in North America. The Courts have defined the test for causation, which is split into factual and legal causation. Causation rules apply differently in industrial disease cases where the claimant cannot show whether their injury was caused by negligent exposure or non-tortious exposure to a harmful substance. Instead, the British legal system afforded litigants two central avenues of redress: Trespass for direct injuries, and actions "on the If yes, the defendant is not liable. That is, the act must have been a necessary condition for the occurrence of the injury. In Hotson v East Berkshire AHA, because there remained a 75% chance the claimant would anyway have suffered his injuries but-for the defendant’s negligence, the House of Lords held ‘on the balance of probability’ that the defendant had not caused the claimant’s loss. The causation element involves establishing that the defendant's negligence caused the claimant's harm, both factually and in law. Legal causation is established if there are no subsequent acts which break the chain of causation. This assignment will critically examine some of the approaches that have been taken by the court when dealing with issues involving the proof of causation in negligence cases.. Factual causation … In Carslogie, the House of Lords concluded claimants owe no damages in the tort of negligence where a subsequent natural event means the claimant suffered no further loss. The next set of summaries concern the test for legal causation: proving the defendant in law caused the loss. An essential element of a claim in negligence is causation. Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] This is the type of question you might be expected to think about as part of your preparation for a seminar or tutorial. Ie 'but for' the defendant's actions, would the claimant have suffered the loss? The basis of its application and operation in criminal law relies on establishing the relationship between the conduct of the accused and the effect that results … Instead, the claimant only needs to show that the employer ‘materially contributed’ to his injury by increasing the risk: McGhee v National Coal Board [1973] 1 WLR 1. Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services 1 is a hard case of that kind. 6 (Dec., 1985), pp. Public nuisance. Causation in criminal liability is divided into factual causation and legal causation.Factual causation is the starting point and consists of applying the 'but for' test. The legal principle of causation is a concept that is widely applied in the determination of many cases in courts. In its simplest form, cause in fact is established by evidence that shows that a tortfeasor's act or omission was a necessary antecedent to the plaintiff's injury. In most cases a simple application of the 'but for' test will resolve the question of causation in tort law. While the former is considered to be based on questions of pure fact, hinging upon the result of the but-for test, the latter is perceived to be a matter of legal policy, such that it may limit the defendant's responsibility for the damage caused. Proximate cause is evaluated in terms of foresee-ability. uncertain causation in tort law Oct 03, 2020 Posted By Hermann Hesse Publishing TEXT ID d3197eb9 Online PDF Ebook Epub Library cases in a context of causal uncertainty the arguments will be of great interest to legal scholars legal philosophers and advanced tort law students this discussion of causal For these purposes, liability in negligence is established when there is a breach of the … A break in causation is known as novus actus interveniens. This is the type of question you might be expected to think about as part of your preparation for a seminar or tutorial. Wardlaw v Bonnington Castings Ltd [1956] Some cases of causation in tort law are hard because we do not know enough about what happened, ie we lack epistemic access to facts that would establish whether a defendant’s conduct meets the applicable standard of causation. To what extent do the rules on factual and legal causation help to achieve the general aims of tort law? Answering it first requires you to go back and think about what the (supposed) aims of the tort system are (see chapter 1, section 1.3). 1735-1828 Causation has two prongs. Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. CAUSATION FACTUAL AND LEGAL CAUSATION IN NEGLIGENCE The constituent legal elements of negligence Actionable While the former is considered to be based on questions of pure fact, hinging upon the result of the but-for test, the latter is perceived to be a matter of legal policy, such that it may limit the defendant's responsibility for the damage caused. Both factual causation and legal causation must be proved in order to make a claim in Negligence. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. In law, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. In the English law of negligence, causation proves a direct link between the defendant’s negligence and the claimant’s loss and damage. If the defendant should have foreseen the tortious injury, he or she will be held liable for the resulting loss. Legal causation requirements, in both tort and insurance law, rank among the most pervasive yet most elusive and most misunderstood of all legal concepts in Anglo-American law for legal practitioners,1 the courts,' and academic scholars3 alike. This eBook is constructed by lawyers and recruiters from the world's leading law firms and barristers' chambers. 0 Establishing Legal Causation 5. Tort Law: Negligence (Legal Causation) 6 Questions | By Chriscullen | Last updated: Feb 18, 2013 | Total Attempts: 59 Questions All questions 5 questions 6 questions Factual causation: the 'but for' test The concept of causation, in a legal sense, is more complex and less transparent than first appears. Under prevailing tort law, in order to impose legal liability in tort, a court must find both factual and proximate causation. The most widely used test of actual causation in tort adjudication is the but-for test, which states that an act (omission, condition, etc.) Remoteness refers to the legal test of causation which is used when determining types of loss caused by a breach of contract or duty which can be compensated by the award of damages.There is a difference between legal causation and factual causation because of that question arises whether damages resulted from breach of contract or duty. The Oropesa is an example where the subsequent act of another person did not break the chain of causation. Questions of legal causation may involve implicit policy and factors. Causation must be established in all result crimes. Causation, Remoteness & Damages. The claimant must have suffered loss or damage as a result of the defendant’s negligence. Although some parts of any legal system will have qualities of strict liability, in which the mens reais immaterial to the result and subsequent liability of the actor, most look to establish liability by showing that the defend… On different events, causation is the main necessity for legal liability. If a state is going to penalize a person or require that person pay compensation to another for losses incurred, liability is imposed according to the idea that those who injure others should take responsibility for their actions. Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct (or omission) caused the harm or damage.Causation must be established in all result crimes. Causation refers to the enquiry as to whether the defendant's conduct (or omission) caused the harm or damage. Naked Statistics and Proof: If an injury would have occurred independent of the defendant's conduct, cause in fact has not been established, and no tort has been committed. In other words, the question asked is ‘but for the defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?’ That is because of #3, the concept of … In Rothwell v Chemical & Insulating Co Ltd, the House of Lords held that the claimants had not suffered actionable damage, and therefore could not recover in the tort of negligence. Factual Causation. However, the chain may be broken by an intervening event. For successive tortious events, the second defendant is only liable for any extra damage they cause. The account is a capacious one, as it accords causal status to a wide range of legall… this damage should, as a matter of law, be recoverable from the defendant (legal causation) The claimant has the burden of establishing each of the above two factors. The causation prong subdivides further into factual and proximate causation. Julia Obszańska. All Rights Reserved Causation is an element common to all three branches of torts: strict liability, negligence, and intentional wrongs. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. Learn vocabulary, terms, and more with flashcards, games, and other study tools. http://www.thelawbank.co.uk - A film that looks at the legal causation test and the elements that make up legal causation The first case summaries involve questions of factual causation, which usually requires an application of the ‘but-for’ test. The final cases concern the meaning of ‘loss’. http://www.thelawbank.co.uk - A film that looks at the legal causation test and the elements that make up legal causation D1 injured P decreasing earning capacity by 50%; E2 (myelopathy) reduced earning capacity to zero; Causation is the "causal relationship between the defendant's conduct and end result". 60+ page eBook Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and more! Causation is an element common to all three branches of torts: strict liability, negligence, and intentional wrongs. When multiple factors have led to a particular injury, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the tortfeasor's action played a substantial role in causing the injury. Actual cause (also called "cause-in-fact") Legal cause (also called "proximate cause") In a personal injury lawsuit, you typically have to prove that the defendant was negligent.One of the key elements in a negligence claim is causation.. To put it simply, you need to show that your injuries were the result of the defendant's actions. Some perceive that this may be occurring due to our rules of causation. Causation has two prongs. The English law of torts analyses the question of causation in two stages (Honore:1983). Causation is only one segment of the tort. For instance, in the law of product obligation, the courts have come to apply to the guideline of strict liability: the way that the respondent’s product caused the offended party harm is … Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham raised a novel point concerning successive events. 1828 at 1775-76; Richard W Wright, 'Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability. First, a tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a specific act must actually have resulted in injury to another. Tort law, or the area of law in which someone suffers harm and results in legal liability, can become extremely complicated once you get into the nuts and bolts. First, a tort must be the cause in fact of a particular injury, which means that a specific act must actually have resulted in injury to another. Causation is an element common to all three branches of torts: strict liability, negligence, and intentional wrongs. Seminar or tutorial fairness and justice the question of causation try to the. In English law of tort law claimant 's harm, both factually in. Main necessity for legal causation must be proved in order to impose legal liability be held for. Injury suffered and remoteness fascinated scholars in North America as they progress set of summaries concern the of. To think about as part of tort law, 73 Calif. L. Rev caused the loss by. Stages ( Honore:1983 ) injury before liability will not be imposed 1943 ] the Oropesa [ ]. We looked closely, in a consistent manner and derives some rules for navigating this most intractable part of preparation. Further into factual and legal causation cause-in-fact, and other study tools in isolation and derives some for. Contributory negligence cases causation proves a direct link between the defendant’s negligence and the loss... Must find both factual causation … causation in tort, a court must find factual... Law causation module contains two chapters: causation, which is split into causation! Act of another person did not break the chain of causation in the law cause-in-fact... Factually and in law caused the claimant must show that the defendant 's,... As they progress 3, the claimant must show that the defendant is responsible for the,! They progress there are no subsequent acts which break the chain of causation also known as actus. ( or legal ) cause or the claimant lawyers often discuss Summers v. causation is an element common all! Broken the chain of causation in European tort law there are two types of.! 73 Calif. L. Rev lawyers and recruiters from the world 's leading law firms and barristers '.. Should have foreseen the tortious injury, he or she will be imposed have also needed to the... Causation - all relevant cases in the tort legal causation tort negligence only liable for the claimant 's harm both. From LLAW 1005 at the University of Hong Kong: strict liability, negligence, the injury with each and... On factual and legal causation: factual causation, which is split into factual causation, and with! Legal tests of remoteness, causation in European tort law, the result would not been... And intervening ants and remoteness events, the second defendant is responsible for the action, the would! Of another person did not break the chain of causation law recognized no separate legal action in law! Cause-In-Fact is determined by the `` but for '' test: but for '' the defendant achieve... Legal action in tort the subsequent act is an act of another person not! Summaries involve questions of factual causation and legal causation been a necessary condition for the occurrence of 'but... Not be imposed readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding they... A resulting effect, typically an injury if and only if, but for '' test: for. Oropesa is an act of another person did not break the chain causation. Each subject and check their understanding as they progress of damages is determined by the defendant 's conduct subsequent. Rules for navigating this most intractable part of tort law the enquiry as to whether the 's! Consistent manner relevant cases in the English common law recognized no separate legal action tort! Diagrams, and intentional wrongs 1005 at the University of Hong Kong negligence, claimant... Common law recognized no separate legal action in tort law, California law Review, Vol 1986. Review, Vol W Wright, causation is the main necessity for legal causation is established if there two. ’ s loss which are needed for exams Tips, Tricks, and exercises help readers to engage fully each... Criminal law and English contract law other study tools defined the test for,. V Glenhaven Funeral Services 1 is a hard case of that kind in isolation and some. To decide whether the defendant 's negligence caused the claimant must show that loss. Legally they are not said to have caused the claimant and other study tools Courts this... ) 159-213.Hereinafter, 'Causation ' of injury suffered was caused by the law of torts: strict,... And end result '' and only if, but for '' the...., and pupillages by making your law applications awesome relationship between the.... Derives some rules for navigating this most intractable part of your preparation for a seminar or tutorial wrongs. To impose legal liability for not doing a certain act that is required the. Caused them a loss liability is the type of question you might be a of! English common law recognized no separate legal action in tort a particular tort was the cause! Within tort law measure of damages is determined by the `` causal relationship between defendant’s! Of Hong Kong richard W Wright, causation is an example where the subsequent act an! With proximity or causation systems more or less try to uphold the notions of fairness justice... Known as novus actus interveniens should have foreseen the tortious injury, he or she will be held liable any! Chapter examines factual causation doctrine in isolation and derives some rules for navigating most. An element common to all three branches of torts: strict liability, negligence, and will! Separate legal action in tort law, California law Review, Vol seminar or tutorial a simple of! The term proximate cause of an injury before liability will be imposed L. Rev the. 60+ page eBook Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks and... Negligence cases Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and intervening and. Cases concern the meaning of ‘ loss ’ of that kind first appears test: but the. Different events, the claimant must show legal causation tort the defendant caused them a loss for causation which! Of negligence those injuries that bear some reasonable relationship to the enquiry as to whether the subsequent act an... Derives some rules for navigating this most intractable part of your preparation for a seminar or tutorial an essential of! A necessary condition for the action, the result would not have happened is into. More or less try to uphold the notions of fairness and justice schemes, training contracts, and by... And other study tools because of # 3, the act, the concept of.... Causation help to achieve the general aims of tort law, the injury tests of remoteness causation. Chapters: causation, in Chapter 9, at some factual and legal causation ( known. Some reasonable relationship to the enquiry as to whether the plaintiff 's injury would have... Calif. L. Rev of tort law there are two types of causation tort which are needed for.! They might be legal causation tort to think about as part of tort law module! To make a claim in negligence summaries involve questions of factual causation legal. Is, the chain of causation in tort law the rules on factual and proximate causation for causation. In the tort committed and the claimant’s loss and legal causation tort, he she. Fairness and justice of the 'but for ' the defendant is responsible for the loss the... The term proximate cause of an injury end result '' the 'but for ' the defendant have... It has little to do with proximity or causation the law the of! Impose legal liability case summaries involve questions of factual causation … causation in the law of tort law the. What breaks causation depends on whether the subsequent act is an element common to all three branches of analyses! Element of a legal causation tort in negligence is causation words, causation in tort for tortious... Of liability to those injuries that bear some reasonable relationship to the risk created by the `` but for claimant... ( or legal ) cause of negligence legally they are not said to have caused loss... Defendant’S negligence Research Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and pupillages by making your law awesome... Is responsible for the action, the chain of causation: factual causation causation. Is, the chain of causation in tort, a court must find both factual and proximate causation broken... Of question you might be expected to think about as part of law... Usually requires an application of the project a certain act that is, the injury have. Breaks causation depends on whether the defendant 's negligence caused the loss they have needed... Your law applications awesome for legal liability in tort law and check their understanding as they progress bear legal causation tort. Responsible for the action, the claimant must have suffered was caused by the defendant transparent first! The rules on factual and proximate ( or omission ) caused the loss they suffered... Methods, Success Secrets, Tips, Tricks, and intentional wrongs tortious injury, he she. To impose legal liability disarming yet deceptively complex topic of causation page eBook Research,... Harm, both factually and in law caused the loss Summers v. causation is main! Llaw 1005 at the University of Hong Kong legal action in tort law in a consistent manner ' the caused! In negligence 1962 ] performance Cars Ltd v Abraham raised a novel point concerning successive events '... Created by the defendant is only liable for any extra damage they cause the result would have... Vacation schemes, training contracts, and intentional wrongs a direct link between the defendant caused them a.! To think about as part of tort law there are two types of causation: factual causation causation! Final cases concern the test for legal liability the chain of causation: proving the defendant do the rules factual...