Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Causation Tests

  • 11-05-2010 7:56pm
    #1
    PrettyBoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,213 ✭✭✭


    What are the two tests that can be used to determine if causation exists? I know the "but for" test is one but can anyone tell me the other?


Comments

  • #2
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    You have to show that the breach of duty of care caused the damage in question by satisfying elements of proximity (that the breach caused loss or damage) and remoteness (that the loss or damage was reasonably foreseeable).

    Is that what you were asking?


  • #3
    PrettyBoy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,213 ✭✭✭PrettyBoy


    Not sure, I have my revision notes for my Tort exam tomorrow and one of the questions asks to simply name the 2 tests used to determine causation, and both the spaces are relatively small so I figured this one would have a short name, like "but for".

    I looked through my notes and all I can see is the "but for" test..


  • #4
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    I'd imagine they're looking for you to say proximity and remoteness.
    The 'but-for' part of the test is really considering proximity, in that the claimant's damage would not have occurred 'but-for' his negligence (described as factual causation in some jurisdictions). Whereas concepts like foreseeability and novus actus interveniens are technically separate from the simple concept of proximity ('but-for') described in North America and Australia, I believe, as legal causation.
    I would recheck John Healy's book on Torts if you have it handy to be sure though.


Advertisement