More to it than just the but for test criticisms o 1

Info icon This preview shows pages 20–21. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
could be causes, at telling us which one is the legal cause. More to it than just the ‘but for’ test. Criticisms : o 1. Multiple Causes Combine Leading to Injury (concurrent or sequential): False positive, will sometimes tell us something is the cause when we know legally it shouldn’t be. (Multiple things that are needed to occur to lead to the accident- things that happen every day. Multiple causes combined to lead the injury. Most people usually held responsible. Eg Grant v Sun Shipping - plaintiff can recover from 1 or all of them o 2. Multiple Sufficient Causes: It will tell us something is not a cause, when it should be a cause (not fool proof). Court has to override it sometimes. Eg. When someone is injured by more than one cause when one alone would have been sufficient to injure them. E.g. 2 people throw lighted cigarette into full wastepaper bin E.g. 2 people negligently waiving their guns around, both accidentally at the same moment point towards u and 2 bullets go through u. One would have been enough. If not for A, B would have killed you and if not for B, A would’ve killed you. Therefore the ‘But for’ Test does not work here, even though both of them were clearly negligent and liable. They’re called ‘Joint tortfeasors’ (the person who did the tort) and plaintiff as with the first one can sue 1 or both (If P sues both, don’t get compensated twice, only get one set of compensation and the court will decide who pays what). The ‘But for’ test is not always going to work, the law needs something else as well as the ‘but for’ test. So common sense is also used by the court. They apply value judgments and policy considerations. So despite what the result was in the ‘but for’ test, could get a different legal result. * March v Stramare (1991): D parked his fruit and veg truck in the mid of rd so he could unload his truck. It was night time and he had some of his lights on. P who’d been out for a good night, was drunk and driving along, smashed into the back of the truck. (Worry bout P being drunk in defences). The issue is: was the d negligent in the first place parking his truck in the middle of the rd. was his neg the cause of p’s injuries? The Court Held: D was liable. All of the court (except for McHugh) say that the ‘but for’ test is useful and it is where you start. But they say it’s not the sole test. Have to apply the ‘but for’ test subject to qualification. The qualification is you have to apply it in a common sense way . CJ Mason : the ‘but for’ test is useful because it does exclude things as causally irrelevant. But he said but for test is not the exclusive test. The results it gives may be tempered by the making of value judgments the infusion of policy consideration. EG. Value judgment that could be argued in the case with the 2 gun spinners (A and B) that kill the plaintiff? The ‘but for’ test says they’re not a cause of the injury. What value judgments to argue causation could be there? If anything the p deserves two lots of compensation, had their rights infringed by 2 wrongdoers. On the basis of that value, that they should be compensated,
Image of page 20

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 21
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern