Legal Causation in Tort Law

Study Notes

Factual Causation

Factual causation is established if the defendant's actions are a necessary condition for the claimant's harm.
"But for" the defendant's actions, the harm would not have occurred.
In the Mai v Daisy case, but for Mai's negligence (driving over the speed limit and ignoring the red light), Daisy would not have been injured.
The link between driving and the initial injury (collision) is clearly established.

Legal Causation

Legal causation is concerned with whether the defendant's actions are sufficiently connected to the claimant's harm, not just a factual one.
The courts apply various tests to determine legal causation.
The chain of causation must not be broken. An intervening event can break the chain.
Novus Actus Interveniens: An intervening act or event that is so significant that it can sever the chain of causation, meaning the defendant is no longer legally responsible for the final harm.
Medical treatment is a common example of an intervening act that may, or may not, break the chain of causation. The treatment must be so independent and unreasonable – a medical error - as to be considered a free, deliberate and informed act of the victim.
In the Mai v Daisy case, the antibiotic, and the subsequent allergic reaction causing the death is something that may break the chain of causation since an unexpected allergic reaction to a medication could be an intervening event, depending on the circumstances. The medical treatment (antibiotics) may be an intervening event; the severity of this depends on whether the medical treatment was an appropriate response to the situation or whether it was so unreasonable or independent as to break the chain of causation.
The courts will consider whether the reaction was reasonably foreseeable. If it was, the defendant (Mai) may still be liable. The specific case that considers medical intervention that breaks the chain of causation needs to be discussed.
Remoteness: The defendant is only liable for harm that is reasonably foreseeable. If the harm is so unusual or unexpected compared with the act, it may be too remote for the defendant's responsibility.
This element is also relevant in establishing legal causation. In Mai v Daisy, the question is whether the allergic reaction was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accident/collision and administration of medical treatment which requires careful reasoning. The court needs to decide on the appropriate test for foreseeability in similar cases.

Description

This quiz explores the concepts of factual and legal causation in tort law, highlighting key principles and landmark cases like Mai v Daisy. Understand how these concepts are applied in legal contexts and how intervening events affect legal responsibility.