CAUSATION IN LAW 2
Question 1
The Doctrine of causation alludes to creation connection with a resulting effect, normally
an injury. In law, causation is termed as actus reus meaning an action where a specific injury or
other effects arose. In law, the Doctrine of causation applies where a material has been achieved.
Concerning the case of Daredevil Dan where he was convicted for the death of Joe. The case of
Daredevil Dan falls within novus actus. In this case, the jury should make attempt to uphold the
notion of justice and fairness (Stapleton, 2008). Under the Doctrine of causation, liability should
be imposed on the legal ideology that individuals who cause injuries to others should take the
responsibility of their actions.
In the case of Daredevil, strict liability can be deciphered referring to mens rea
showcases immateriality to the results and the liability of the actor. Under this case, the jury
should clearly establish the liability by proving that the defendant was the primary cause of the
sustained injury. In the case of Yorkshire Dale Steamship Co v Minister of War Transport[1942]
AC 691 (HL), the court ruling stressed that causation should be understood as the man on the
street would through application of common sense (March v Stramare (1991) 171 CLR 506.
Moreover, in the case of State vs. Tally, 15 S0 722, 738 ruled that assistance rendered need not
necessary contribute to criminal liability (Moore, 2009).
In further establishing causation, the defendant should owe duty of care. Therefore, the
breach of the duty leading to an injury or damage to the plaintiff establishes liability. Moreover,
in the product liability under strict liability the defendant is required not to have been negligent.
In establishing the facts in Daredevil Dan case, there was duty of care owed. However, the
unforeseen circumstance of tyre burst provides that Daredevil Dan provided a position that can
be considered safe because he was not aware that the tyre was going to burst. Thus, Daredevil
Dan should be indemnified of the product because of unforeseeable tyre burst as the product left
Joe n a position considered safe where he had no control of doctor’s negligence. Moreover, the
liability ought to be imposed on the legal ideology that individuals causing harm to others should
be liable for their own actions (Sheffet, 1983).
Question two
Part A
In the event when the blood transfusion was offered and refused the case falls on the
ground of novus actus where it should be established whether Joe was left in a safe position. In
this case, blood transfusion was imminent and refusal releases the doctor from any liability.
Moreover, Daredevil Dan is also free of liability under the doctrine of causation where there was
occurrence of unforeseen circumstance of the tyre burst.
Part B
In the event where Joe died 8 months after the blood poisoning the legal fact of liability
falling on the person inflicting the injury applies. As seen earlier, Daredevil ought to be
indemnified on the ground that Joe was left in a safe position and that he had not foreseen the
tyre burst.
