Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A risk theory is not strictly a theory built on notions of cause at all, as, by definition, the person who caused the injury could not be ascertained for certain. However, it does show that legal notions of causation are a complex mixture of factual causes and ideas of public policy relating to the availability of legal remedies.
In law and insurance, a proximate cause is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the cause of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause.
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.
In legal matters, "but-for", "sine qua non", causa sine qua non, [9] or "cause-in-fact" causation, or condicio sine qua non, is a circumstance in which a certain act is a material cause of a certain injury or wrongdoing, without which the injury would not have occurred.
Counterfactual theories define causation in terms of a counterfactual relation, and can often be seen as "floating" their account of causality on top of an account of the logic of counterfactual conditionals. Counterfactual theories reduce facts about causation to facts about what would have been true under counterfactual circumstances. [24]
Causation – the conduct that the claimant complains of must have caused damage, in this regard both factual causation and legal causation are assessed. The purpose of legal causation is to limit the scope of factual causation, if the consequence of the action is too remote to have been foreseen by an objective, reasonable person the defendant ...
Legal causation or remoteness – The idea that liability may be so remote from the defendant that the negligence was not foreseeable or preventable by that party. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress - The idea that one has a legal duty to use reasonable care to avoid causing emotional distress to another individual.
In S v Tembani, an important case in South African criminal law, especially in respect of the issue of legal causation, it seemed to the Witwatersrand Local Division, following the approach of English law, to be "of overriding importance that the original wound inflicted by the accused was an operating and substantial cause of the death of the deceased."