In a widely read work, they argued that a common sense approach to causation could be deconstructed, although conceding that there would be a penumbra of uncertainty. The underlying theme for today’s conference is causation. 1985) 30-41. In criminal law, it is defined as the actus reus (an action) from which the specific injury or other effect arose and is combined with mens rea (a state of mind) to comprise the elements of guilt. My presentation today draws heavily from that article, although some arguments are refined. They are as follows: (1) Since causation is concerned with a relationship between "event" and "response", how do we characterise the relevant "event" and the relevant "response"? A party’s negligence may be deemed “spent” as a causative factor in the harm done, due to the intervention of an overriding and unforeseen circumstance. March v Stramare, [19] 4. Novus Actus Interveniens Adelaide Chemical & Fertilizer Co v Carlyle (1940) 64 CLR 514 March v Stramare (1991) 171 CLR 506 Bennett v Minister of Community Welfare (1992) 176 CLR 408 Lamb v London Borough of Camden [1981] QB 625 Lamb v London Borough of Camden [1981]2 All ER 408 Haber v Walker (1963) VR 339 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Haynes v … That meaning is necessity which is applied by a test, as lawyers commonly call it, of "but for". [27] Eg Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop [2006] 1 AC 328. This amounts to a “necessary condition” of the harm under s 5D(1)(a) of the Civil Liability Act 2002 (NSW). J Fleming The Law of Torts ( 3rd Ed, Law Book Co, Sydney, 1965) p 231. Decisions In [21]: Cf March v E and M H Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 per Mason CJ at 515-516, Deane J at 521 - 523, Toohey J at 524. The Kuwaiti planes were later destroyed by the coalition bombing of Mosul. For instance, in Gould v Vaggelas,[39] Brennan CJ spoke of the need for a misrepresentation to be 'one of the real inducements to the plaintiff to do whatever caused his loss'. [29]In that case, the appellants were unlawfully detained pending deportation because their detention was under an unlawful blanket policy. Indeed, the "common sense" approach is not actually "common" sense. The defence submitted that the act of voluntary euthanasia as a free, deliberate and informed decision was a novus actus interveniens breaking the chain of causation, in circumstances where Mr van Dongen could survive. 1985) 30-41. The doctrine of the novus actus interveniens familiar in the field of delict or the law of contract, if it is to be relevant and exculpatory, must involve that the intervening actus is truly novus and [ultroneous] (see, for example the speech of Lord Wright in The Oropesa [1943] p.32 quoted Finlayson v … [9], I should emphasise that, unlike some theorists, I do not say that top down reasoning is always illegitimate. As it turns out, there are numerous such instances in the law. March v Stramare, [27] 5. (3) If causation is not found to exist, should responsibility be imposed in any event? On the other hand, outside the law of negligence it has sometimes been possible to characterise the relevant outcome as the injury rather than the loss that has been suffered and to find that a substantial award is required to vindicate the plaintiff’s rights even if no loss has been suffered. The novus actus criterion, that is, cannot reliably yield sensible outcomes on a consistent basis.24 The present state of the law of causation, certainly in the torts context, is that ... 20 March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 at 522 (Deane J); Medlin v State Government [1] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd (1991) 171 CLR 506 at 530. Only mention Evidentiary gap for this section- Bonnington. 1.1) Novus Actus Interveniens in relation to Act of God. 20. [11] I doubt whether this is correct. Chapman v Hearse is a significant case in common law related to duty of care, reasonable foreseeability and novus actus interveniens within the tort of negligence. One difference is that under Roman law, the striking of the slave infringed the rights of the slave owner or, as the Romans would have expressed it, gave rise to an action. An event will only ever be a cause of an outcome if the event is necessary for the outcome. Novus Actus Interveniens. The similarity between the two classes of case is that the plaintiff can’t prove that but for the wrong the plaintiff would not have suffered the loss. * It was disproved by Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1961) that used the foresee-ability test. Adelaide Chemical & Fertilizer Co v Carlyle (1940) 64 CLR 514 To successfully argue a novus actus interveniens, there must be something stronger than a mere rumour of which a plaintiff has knowledge in order to sever the causal link between the breach of implied warranty and the consequent damage. You must confirm your e-mail address before editing pages. Jump to: navigation, search. 24 April 1991 . The argument failed. [25] That case concerned a statute which contained the phrase 'death …resulted from the use of th[at] substance'. 5 Breach of Duty Causation: Civil Liability Act (NSW) The Civil Liability Act (NSW) adopted the 'but for' test outlined by McHugh in March v Stramare … Adams J. Sometimes the reverse situation to a novus actus occurs, i.e. As Professor Stapleton has argued, the law must distinguish between questions that are concerned with causation and questions that are concerned with the scope of liability for consequences. Contributory negligence - If the plaintiff is negligent this may satisfy the court that the ‘chain of causation’ between the defendant’s breach of contract and the plaintiff’s loss has been broken ie. One possible answer, although not without difficulty, is provided by Dr Douglas. The relevant event was "use of a substance, namely heroin only" and the relevant outcome was "death". [49] Recounted in L Hoffmann 'Fairchild and after' in A Burrows, D Johnston, and R Zimmermann (eds) Judge and Jurist: Essays in Memory of Lord Rodger of Earlsferry (2013) 63. o! event which is seen as the real cause of the loss (March v Stramare). Including Bankruptcy, Corporations, Migration, Administrative & Constitutional Law and Human Rights; Communicating with the Court; Expert witnesses. The Defendant [Stramare] parked a truck in the middle of the road whilst they were unloading items into a shop. Novus Actus Interveniens. [52] Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20; [2006] 2 AC 572. [15] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, 516. The same panel of the Rolls Royce had been previously damaged by another wrongdoer who was liable to pay for the repairs. On an application of the "but for" test, the answer to the causal inquiry was simple. Although its genesis is much earlier, the "common sense" approach to causation has been well known in Australia since. o! [17] March v E & MH Stramare Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 12; (1991) 171 CLR 506, 517 - 518. If the relevant question for causation was whether Mr Abraham’s conduct had caused denting of the Rolls Royce panel then the answer is "yes". But the premise might be questioned.