Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Where establishing causation is required to establish legal liability, it usually involves a two-stage inquiry, firstly establishing 'factual' causation, then legal (or proximate) causation. [1] Factual causation must be established before inquiring into legal or proximate causation. [1]
Tort, negligence, factual causation, McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] UKHL 7 , 1 W.L.R. 1, is a leading tort case decided by the House of Lords . The Lords held that where a breach of duty has a material effect on the likelihood of injury then the subsequent injury will be said to have been caused by the breach.
There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. [1] (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.)
There is also an issue of causation, in this the courts look at both factual causation and legal causation. Factual causation uses the 'but for' test, asking: 'but for the defendant's act, would the result still have occurred?' If it would have occurred regardless of the defendant's acts, there is no factual causation and the defendant is not ...
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law . In the English law of negligence , causation proves a direct link between the defendant ’s negligence and the claimant ’s loss and damage.
The only remaining issue was that of causation. As far as factual causation was concerned, the court held that the respondent's negligent report on the 1978 financial statements unquestionably constituted a causa sine qua non of the appellant's loss, since a proper and non-negligent performance of his duties as auditor would have obviated the ...
Perhaps the best known case creating an implied cause of action for constitutional rights is Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). In that case, the United States Supreme Court ruled that an individual whose Fourth Amendment freedom from unreasonable search and seizures had been violated by federal agents could sue for the violation of the Amendment itself, despite the lack ...
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 2 WLR 422 is an English tort law case that applies the "but for" test of causation. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] Facts