Legal Cause - Case Study Example

LEGAL CAUSATION –AN ANALYSIS Introduction A defendant cannot be held liable for the plaintiff’s damages or injury unless the defendant’s behaviour legally caused the plaintiff’s damage or injury. It is to be noted that even if the defendant’s conduct was illegal, if the demeanour is too remotely interrelated with the plaintiff’s damage or injury ,it cannot said to cause legal causation. An individual cannot be held legally liable for far-flung results of his illegal acts. So as to substantiate an individual’s wrongful action to be regarded as a legal cause of another individual’s injury, the defendant’s unfair act must have a sizeable element in causing the plaintiff’s injury. (Sparta and Koocher 2006:291). Thus, the defendant act must have a substantial element so that the reasonable person would consider the same as an act that cause the harm. Legal cause cannot be established if an individual conduct does no more than create the situation that makes the other individual’s damages possible. Analysis Causation can be classified into two groups. The first one is cause-in-fact which spotlights on whether the defendant’s act was the necessary reason for the injury at issue and the second one is proximate cause or legal causation which spotlights on what legal impacts should apply to the defendant’s injurious behaviour.( Johnston & Zimmermann 2002 :556). To appreciate the implication of objective cause-in-fact in the legal process, one should explore what role it takes in the legal system. The “but for “litmus test is the primary rule of legal causation. This test for factual causation is held in Rv.White as early as 1910 which is known as the “but for “test. This has been demonstrated in the case R v White1. In this case, the White, the defendant administered poison to his own mother and before the poison had its effect on her mother, his mother died due to massive heart attack. It was held that the accused was not responsible for the homicide as it was the heart attack and not the poison that killed his mother. However, the accused was held liable under attempted murder. It is to be noted that in “but for” test case, the victim would not have suffered the death or injury as and when they committed. “Cause-in-fact” refers that the act or deed protested which was a substantial factor in bringing about the damages or injury and no harm would have inflicted on the plaintiff without the act or deed. The test for legal causation is laid down in R v. Smith in 1959 in which Smith was responsible for chain of events which caused the death of the victim. According to court, the intervening deeds did not rupture this chain of occurrences. However, Courts are rather hesitant to allow the defendant to go without punishment due to intervening deeds rupturing the chain of happenings. (O’Riordan 2002:175). In Regina v. Blaue2, the accused was found guilty of murder when the injured party was declined a blood transfusion which would have saved the life of the victim. In spite of evidence failed to demonstrate that wounds were not supposed to be fatal, the defendant was found guilty on the grounds that he had legally caused the death of the victim. Proximate cause is one where the act or deed reported of must be such that an individual practicing ordinary care would have anticipated that the incident might emanate there from. For instance, individuals are often held liable for injury caused by other persons in the following occasions. Employer is vicariously accountable for the acts of his employees. For instance, a driver who caused a death of a pedestrian while in employment, the employer will be held liable. The owner of pet dog if the dog bites a person. The owner of a building if injury is caused to individuals due to subsidence or fire. In Hill v.Chief Constable of West Yorkshire3, the plaintiff, who was the mother of a women who was murdered had accused that police failed to investigate properly the sequence of a serial murderer and because of this negligence, her daughter was murdered. The trial against respondent i.e. police failed on the basis of no duty of care. (Harpwood 2005:123). In Stovin v.Wise4 , a local authority was included as an respondent in an motor accident case accusing the authority have failed to remove obstructions to enhance visibility at a road junction. The House of Lords held that council cannot be held liable on the fundamentals of no duty of care. (Fairgrieve 2003:126). In X (Minors) v. Bedfordshire County Council5, it was accused that respondent had not taken appropriate steps to initiate care proceedings after the receipt of complaint that child was subject to parental neglect and abuse. In this case also, respondent was not held liable for breach of statutory duty / negligence. (Sue Hodge 2004:37). In all the above cases, the court was of the opinion that respondents owed no duty care to the applicants and thus they cannot be held liable under the ordinary rules of negligence. The court ruling was arrived to some extent on the relevance of the customary, legalistic mechanism of proximity and foreseeability. In R v Smith,6 an accused had stabbed an individual and he was admitted in a hospital. The doctor was under impression the injury was not so grave that needed immediate intensive treatment. It was decided this did not rupture the chain of causation and finally, the defendant was held for the murder. It is to be noted that chain of causation can be busted if there is an overriding act which is known as novus actus interveniens. This act should be substantial and should be different from the actions of the defendant. Conclusion Thus, the statement ”Legal causation achieves nothing more than allowing some guilty defendants to escape the consequences of their action" is untrue due to well established foregoing legal cases . Thus, under causation in law, it is enough to prove that defendant is responsible for consequence. The defendant’s act may be minimal and need not be substantial. There may be involvement of third parties but still defendant is considered to be liable. For instance, in R v. Smith case, it is the Smith who started the chain of events that ultimately resulted in the death of the victim. According to the court, the intervening act did not break the series of events. The courts are rather disinclined to let off defendant due to intervening actions flouting the series of causation. R v. Cheshire and R v. Blaue are two significant cases that reflect this attitude of courts. In another case, it was decided by the lower courts in Britain that a defendant cannot be held responsible for plaintiff’s cancer as he worked in two companies which dealt with asbestos. However, the House of Lords, held in trilogy cases which were known as Fairchild, allowed the appeals of three employees who suffered cancer while in employment with the many employers and handled asbestos while in employment. A defendant cannot be held liable for the plaintiff’s damages or injury unless the defendant’s behaviour legally caused the plaintiff’s damage or injury. Thus, from the above illustrated cases, it is clear that the above statement is untrue and even the minimal cause can make the defendant to be liable for the plaintiff’s suffering under the law of causation. List of Reference A.W. Bradley & Keith D Ewing. (2006).Constitutional and Administrative Law. Pearson Longman David Johnston& Reinhard Zimmermann. (2002). Unjustified Enrichments: Key Issues in Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Duncan Fairgrieve. (2003). State Liability in Tort: A Comparative Law Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press Emma Cave. (2004). The Mother of All Crimes: Human Rights, Criminilisation and the Child Born Alive. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Fry, James D. (2007).’Coercion, Causation and the Fictional Elements of Indirect State Responsibility.’ Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 40, (3) 611 Fumerton Richard and Ken Kress. (2001).’Causation and the Law: Preemption, Lawful Sufficiency, and Causal Sufficiency.’ Law and Contemporary Problems 64, (4) 83 Jimmy O’Riordan. (2002). As Law for Aaq. Heinemann John Heil and Alfred Mele. (1993).Mental Causation. Oxford: Clarendon Press Michael T.Molan (2005). Cases and Materials on Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. Cavendish: Routledge Nagel, Stuart S. (1986). Causation, Prediction, and Legal Analysis. New York: Quorum Books Steven N Sparta & Gerald P.Koocher. (2006). Forensic Mental Health Assessment of Children and Adolescents. Oxford: Oxford University Press Sue Hodge (2004). Tort Law. Wilan Publishing Vivienne Harpwood, Harpwood (2005). Modern Tort Law. Cavendish: Routledge Read More