1-12 of 12 Results

  • Keyword: novus actus interveniens x
Clear all

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

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

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

R v Rebelo [2021] EWCA Crim 306, 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 Rebelo [2021] EWCA Crim 306, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.

Chapter

Cover Essential Cases: Criminal Law

R v Rebelo [2021] EWCA Crim 306, 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 Rebelo [2021] EWCA Crim 306, Court of Appeal. The document also included supporting commentary from author Jonathan Herring.

Chapter

Cover Street on Torts

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

Cover Concentrate Questions and Answers Tort Law

4. Negligence III: Causation and Remoteness of Damage  

Dr Karen Dyer and Dr Anil Balan

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. This chapter discusses negligence in terms of causation and remoteness of damage. To answer questions on this topic, students need to understand the following: the concept of causation in negligence; causation in fact: the standard ‘but for’ test; variations of the ‘but for’ test: unknown causes, consecutive causes, and cumulative causes; causation in law: the test for ‘remoteness of damage’; the ‘eggshell-skull’ rule; and novus actus interveniens (new intervening acts): the act of the claimant, the act of third parties, and natural events.

Chapter

Cover Tort Law Directions

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 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

Cover Tort Law Concentrate

8. Causation  

Intervening acts and remoteness

This chapter discusses the law on intervening acts and remoteness. There are a range of situations in which the defendant’s act can be a cause of the claimant’s loss because it satisfies the ‘but-for’ test. However, this is followed by one or more events which contribute to the eventual damage in such a way that the chain of causation can be broken. This is sometimes referred to as an intervening act (or novus actus interveniens), and such acts can be divided into three categories: actions by the claimant himself, actions by a third party, and natural events. Remoteness is a simpler way of describing what is also known as causation in law, and is concerned with the extent of a defendant’s duty. The key case is The Wagon Mound (No 1) where the test of reasonable foreseeability of damage was adopted.