Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sometimes the reverse situation to a novus actus occurs, i.e. factual causation cannot be proved but the court nevertheless does want to hold the defendant liable. In Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories, 607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980) the plaintiff's mother consumed diethylstilbestrol as a miscarriage preventive. [11]
Most requirements for a successful actus reus require a voluntary act, or omission, for evidence of fault. There is also a requirement for a clear causation, there is no liability or fault if the defendant was not actually the sole cause of the act, this is so if there was an intervention of a third party, an unexpected natural event, or the victim's own act.
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.)
Conduct in the law of delict is usually divided into factual and legal causation. Factual causation is proven by a 'demonstration that the wrongful act was a causa sine qua non of the loss'. This is also known as the 'but-for' test. A successful demonstration, however, 'does not necessarily result in legal liability'.
For example, when a pregnancy test indicates a woman is not pregnant, but she is, or when a person guilty of a crime is acquitted, these are false negatives. The condition "the woman is pregnant", or "the person is guilty" holds, but the test (the pregnancy test or the trial in a court of law) fails to realize this condition, and wrongly ...
Alabama v. White, 496 US 325 (1990), is a U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Fourth Amendment.The majority opinion ruled that anonymous tips can provide reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop provided that police can factually verify the circumstances asserted by the tip.
Breaking the chain (or novus actus interveniens, literally new intervening act) refers in English law to the idea that causal connections are deemed to finish. Even if the defendant can be shown to have acted negligently, there will be no liability if some new intervening act breaks the chain of causation between that negligence and the loss or damage sustained by the claimant.