Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers to engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. In addition to duty of care and breach of that duty, the third essential element to bring a successful action in negligence is causation of damage. In other words, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the breach caused his damage. The defendant cannot be made liable for the harm suffered by the claimant if he is not responsible, or partly responsible, for such harm—even if he has been negligent. The question of causation can be divided into two issues: causation in fact and causation in law (also known as remoteness). The primary means of establishing factual causation is the ‘but for’ test. Reasonable foreseeability of damage of the relevant type (Wagon Mound) is required to establish that the claimant’s injury is not too remote. The chain of causation may be broken by unreasonable or unforeseeable acts or events (novus actus interveniens).
Chapter
4. Negligence: causation
Chapter
4. Negligence: causation
Without assuming prior legal knowledge, books in the Directions series introduce and guide readers through key points of law and legal debate. Questions, diagrams, and exercises help readers engage fully with each subject and check their understanding as they progress. In addition to duty of care and breach of that duty, the third essential element to bring a successful action in negligence is causation of damage. In other words, the claimant must prove on the balance of probabilities that the breach caused their damage. The defendant cannot be made liable for the harm suffered by the claimant if they are not responsible, or partly responsible, for such harm—even if they have been negligent. The question of causation can be divided into two issues: causation in fact and causation in law (also known as remoteness). The primary means of establishing factual causation is the ‘but for’ test. Reasonable foreseeability of damage of the relevant type (Wagon Mound) is required to establish that the claimant’s injury is not too remote. The chain of causation may be broken by unreasonable or unforeseeable acts or events (novus actus interveniens).
Chapter
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Wallace [2019] EWCA Crim 690, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Wallace [2019] EWCA Crim 690, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 470, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 470, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Field [2021] EWCA Crim 380, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Field [2021] EWCA Crim 380, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Wallace [2019] EWCA Crim 690, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Wallace [2019] EWCA Crim 690, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 470, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v A [2020] EWCA Crim 470, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Field [2021] EWCA Crim 380, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Field [2021] EWCA Crim 380, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Kuddus [2019] EWCA Crim 837, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844, Court of Appeal
Essential Cases: Criminal Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.
Chapter
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388
Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Docks & Engineering Co. Ltd (The Wagon Mound No 1) [1961] AC 388. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse.
Chapter
7. Causation and remoteness
This chapter examines the issues of causation and remoteness in negligence, which basically concern the links between breaches of duty and the consequences of those breaches and the strength of those links. The chapter considers in detail causation in fact, causation in law, and remoteness of damage. We find that courts have developed several important exceptions to the ordinary ‘but for’ test of factual causation, including the Fairchild principle. Fairchild can be considered as a departure from the normal requirement that the claimant must prove factual causation of damage. Legal causation is tested by looking for unexpected events called novi actus intervenientes. Remoteness is an issue of foreseeability of damage.
Chapter
2. Fundamental Principles of Criminal Liability—Actus Reus and Mens Rea
The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each book includes typical questions, diagram answer plans, suggested answers, author commentary, and advice on study skills. This chapter presents sample exam questions on the elements of crime and suggested answers. The traditional starting point for the study of criminal law is the constituents of a criminal offence. These are the fundamental principles of criminal liability: actus reus (often referred to as the prohibited conduct, but more accurately described as the external elements of the offence) and mens rea (often referred to as the mental element, but more accurately described as the fault element). They include the distinction between acts and omissions, causation, and the different levels of fault (intention, recklessness and negligence).
Chapter
4. Causation
Celebrated for their conceptual clarity, titles in the Clarendon Law Series offer concise, accessible overviews of major fields of law and legal thought. This chapter discusses the issue of causation. Damages are due to the victim only if the harm was due to the tortfeasor. The harm must be the effect of the defendant's misconduct and causation must be established. The principal question to ask in matters of causation is: Did the breach of duty contribute to the occurrence of the harm? At all costs one must avoid the easy supposition that a result can have only one cause, or that one must seek out the ‘main’ cause, relevant though this may be in claims under an insurance policy. The chapter also identifies three ways that the law lets a defendant off the hook even though the harm would not have occurred but for his negligence. These are the rules of remoteness, intervention, and purpose.
Chapter
14. Deceit
This chapter discusses the tort of deceit. The common-law rules concerning liability for dishonesty were synthesised to create the tort of deceit at the end of the eighteenth century in Pasley v. Freeman, and the tort takes its modern form from the decision of the House of Lords in Derry v. Peek in 1889. Most of the cases concern non-physical damage, that is to say, financial or pure economic loss, although the tort can also extend to cover personal injuries and damage to property. The requirements of liability are as follows: the defendant must make a false statement of existing fact with knowledge of its falsity and with the intention that the claimant should act on it, with the result (4) that the claimant acts on it to his detriment.
