LAW 1507 Lecture 6: About Causation and remoteness and first steps
23 May 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Causation and remoteness
Causation= Is there a link between harm (breach) and that negligence.
Words link causal chain or casual link.
❖ Necessary causal connection generally established if the plaintiff proves that he or
she would not have been injured if the defendant had not been negligent.
❖ There is a lik if you ould say, ”if the defedat had ot ated i a partiular ay,
y leg ould ot e roke”.
❖ Novus= Break in the chain
❖ Say you caused an injury, but then ambulance come and during taking the p the
doors open and the p is hurt again. The defendant is not owed liability for both
incidents.
Case Godfrey
❖ Godfrey decision- Didt ause the har
❖ When there are two parties involved, in ambo situation the car crash d is liable for
broken leg, ambo is liable for broken arm/ nose.
MARCH V STRAMARE (1991) 171 CLR 506
❖ About case- A driver was in city there was a truck was unloading taking 6 lanes.
Driver of a car was speeding and drunk and ran into back of car and caused damages
to him. The car driver said it as the truk driers fault for ijuries, ut truk drier
said no we always do this and have been doing so for years.
❖ Judge- A person may be responsible for fault if 1 of (the fault) is their own mistake.
(e.g drunk driver crash gets hurt by negligence of another driver)
But for test
❖ THE BUT FOR TEST-A person who is out hunting with 2 other hunters, the 2 fire their
weapons negligently and shoot the 3rd (c) hunter. C takes a and b to court and says
hunter a you shoot him negligently. The question is would c have got shot if b not
hae shot you. I this ase yes eause a shoot ayay. If you hadt egligetly
hired at me (a) would she have been shoot? Yes because (b) shot anyway.
❖ Court said- We aot apply the ut for test. Beause they should be responsible,
they have been neglect and because of this (a) has been hurt
❖ Causation should be approached with common sense and question of fact. If the
failure to meet the standard of care resulting to the injury suffered. You can go on to
the ought kind of the story.
❖ Roads act- Is authority that breach alone is not enough need to move on to
causation
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Causation= is there a link between harm (breach) and that negligence. Necessary causal connection generally established if the plaintiff proves that he or she would not have been injured if the defendant had not been negligent. There is a li(cid:374)k if you (cid:272)ould say, if the defe(cid:374)da(cid:374)t had (cid:374)ot a(cid:272)ted i(cid:374) a parti(cid:272)ular (cid:449)ay, (cid:373)y leg (cid:449)ould (cid:374)ot (cid:271)e (cid:271)roke(cid:374) . Say you caused an injury, but then ambulance come and during taking the p the doors open and the p is hurt again. The defendant is not owed liability for both incidents. When there are two parties involved, in ambo situation the car crash d is liable for broken leg, ambo is liable for broken arm/ nose. About case- a driver was in city there was a truck was unloading taking 6 lanes. Driver of a car was speeding and drunk and ran into back of car and caused damages to him.
