Professional Documents
Culture Documents
That is to say
that causation provides a means of connecting conduct with a resulting effect, typically an injury.
In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other
effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt.
Causation is only applicable where a result has been achieved and therefore is immaterial with
regard to inchoate offenses.
But for test:-
Facts[edit]
Three men attended at the emergency department of the hospital run by the Chelsea &
Kensington Hospital Management Committee but the casualty officer, Dr Banerjee, did not see
them, advising that they should go home and call their own doctors. One of the men died some
hours later. The post mortem showed arsenic poisoning which was a rare cause of death.
Judgment[edit]
It was held, that on the 'but for' test, even if the deceased had been examined and admitted for
treatment, there was little or no chance that the only effective antidote would have been
administered to him in time. Although the hospital had been negligent, because it was more likely
than not that he would have died anyway, the negligence was not the cause of death.
Held:
The House of Lords distinguished Baker v Willoughby and stated
where the victim is overtaken before trial by a wholly
unconnected and disabling illness, the decision had no
application. The House of Lords were critical of the decision
inBaker v Willoughby but stopped short of overruling it.
Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] AC
750 House of Lords
The claimant as a school boy fell out of a tree from a height of 12
foot. He suffered a fracture to his hip and was taken to hospital.
The hospital failed to diagnose his fracture and sent him home.
He was in severe pain so he was taken back to hospital 5 days
later where an X ray revealed his injury. He was treated and
suffered an avascular necrosis which resulted in him having a
permanent disability and a virtual certainty that he would develop
osteoarthritis. According to medical evidence, had he been
correctly diagnosed initially there was a 75% chance that he
would have still developed this condition, but there was a 25%
chance that he would have made a full recovery. The trial judge
awarded damages of 11,500 based of 25% of 46,000 which
was what would have been awarded if the claimant had shown
that the defendant's conduct had caused the avascular necrosis of
the hip.
Held:
The claimant had failed to establish on the balance of probabilities
that the defendant's breach of duty had caused the necrosis since
there was a 75% chance that it was caused by the fall. Therefore
the claimant was not entitled to receive anything in respect of the
necrosis.
Judgment[edit]
The owners of the Carslogie were held liable only for the loss suffered by the Heimgar which was
a direct result of the collision with the Carslogie. The House of Lords held that the storm was
a novus actus interveniens that broke the chain of causation.[1] The defendant was not liable for
any subsequent loss that arose from the storm encounter.