LAW 1507 Lecture Notes - Lecture 6: Criminal Negligence
2 Jul 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
CAUSATION AND REMOTENESS
RICHARDS AND DE ZWART CHAPTER 12
No-one can be held responsible for loss or damage that does not flow from their
actions
Causation- Has the defendant’s actions caused the interference with the plaintiff’s
person? Also referred to as ‘factual causation.’ If the defendant’s actions didn’t
make a difference there is no liability.
Remoteness- Whether or not the damage or interference is too remote from the
defendant’s conduct. Also referred to as ‘scope of liability.’ Ask- Should the act or
omission related to the incident result in liability?
Clear factual connection between the breach and harm suffered must be determined
by the plaintiff
Would the plaintiff have been harmed or suffered damage independent of the
defendant’s negligence? See March v E & MH Stramare (1991) 171 CLR 506
Think of Blakley wife trial Janet high end of criminal negligence
Clear causation apparent more than speculation
Post hoc propter hoc line of argument- Because it follows it, it must have been
caused by it
Proof on the balance of probabilities
1
Melissa Sparrow (a1668063)
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
No-one can be held responsible for loss or damage that does not flow from their actions. Also referred to as factual causation. " if the defendant"s actions didn"t make a difference there is no liability. Remoteness- whether or not the damage or interference is too remote from the defendant"s conduct. Clear factual connection between the breach and harm suffered must be determined by the plaintiff. Would the plaintiff have been harmed or suffered damage independent of the. Think of blakley wife trial janet high end of criminal negligence. Post hoc propter hoc line of argument- because it follows it, it must have been caused by it.
