Scribd
Upload
203 views12 pages

Causation

This document discusses the concepts of factual and legal causation in delictual liability. It provides examples from case law where: 1) The defendant's conduct was found to be the factual and legal cause of the harm even where subsequent actions occurred, as the actions were reasonable responses to the situation created by the defendant. 2) There was no break in the causal chain due to medical negligence or a victim's pre-existing medical conditions, as defendants must take victims as they find them. 3) The "thin skull rule" establishes that defendants are liable if their actions cause unforeseeably serious harm due to a victim's pre-existing medical conditions, unless the victim failed to take reasonable precautions

Uploaded by

jiggie jigga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
203 views12 pages

Causation

This document discusses the concepts of factual and legal causation in delictual liability. It provides examples from case law where: 1) The defendant's conduct was found to be the factual and legal cause of the harm even where subsequent actions occurred, as the actions were reasonable responses to the situation created by the defendant. 2) There was no break in the causal chain due to medical negligence or a victim's pre-existing medical conditions, as defendants must take victims as they find them. 3) The "thin skull rule" establishes that defendants are liable if their actions cause unforeseeably serious harm due to a victim's pre-existing medical conditions, unless the victim failed to take reasonable precautions

Uploaded by

jiggie jigga
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 12

CAUSATION

FACTUAL CAUSE
D P

D’s conduct sets in motion train of events that lead to harm to P – but
for D’s action harm would not have resulted – if remove D’s conduct
from picture, would harm still have occurred?

LEGAL CAUSE
D

Device further to restrict liability where liability for factual cause may
lead to overextended liability. Common sense test to ensure that
sufficient connection between conduct and result to justify making D
liable. Adequate or sufficient causation.

Reasonable foreseeability e.g. freakish subsequent event not


reasonably foreseeable and therefore constitutes a novus actus
interveniens that breaks the chain of causation. Hindsight view of
events.

Direct consequences – not used in Zimbabwe


Mbulawa v Mutandiro 1989 (3) ZLR 83 (S)
D, driver, who had been drinking beer to the knowledge
of P & was not in proper control over car. Overtaken
earlier by car & tried to race with it. Told by passengers
to desist.

Another car overtook D close to a narrow bridge. Drove


dangerously by trying to overtake car at excessive
speed on narrow bridge. He started to return to his side
of road before had fully passed vehicle he was
overtaking. Passenger in front seat, thinking that
collision imminent, grabbed steering wheel & moved it to
the right. As a result, D lost control of car, which went off
the road & overturned. The passenger who grabbed the
wheel was killed P, who was in the back seat, was
severely injured. Claim for damages.
Held action of deceased passenger arose out of
exigencies of situation created by D’s own conduct &
was one which, together with the resultant accident, a
reasonably prudent man would have foreseen – not
novus actus interveniens.

Courts did not deal with defence plea that defence of


voluntary assumption of risk applied. Prior to accident P
fully aware that D drinking & driving badly but stayed in
car nonetheless thereby voluntarily assuming the risk of
injury.
United Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd v Shambawamedza 2002 (1) ZLR 341
(S)
P hired paraffin refrigerator from D. Term of agreement that D
would service fridge & keep it in good working order. Mechanic
employed by D lit burner of fridge but failed to position tank
correctly beneath chimney. As result, heat generated by burner
melted solder on burner which ignited paraffin that mechanic
had spilled on tank & omitted to wipe off.
When P, who was unaware of what had happened, opened the
cover of tank in order to adjust the flame of burner, was
engulfed in flames & suffered severe burns. Court found
mechanic had been negligent.
Subsequent harm to P was reas foreseeable & should have
been guarded against. P’s act in opening cover of tank was
reas foreseeable consequence of mechanic’s negligence &
was therefore not novus actus interveniens that broke causal
link. No contributory negligence on part of P.
Groenewald v Groenewald 1998 (2) SA 1106 (SCA)
D physically assaulted P, threatening to kill her. He
locked her inside an office. She had tried to escape from
D previously but this attempt was unsuccessful & this
had led to the assault & threats. After being locked in
office, P had sought to escape by climbing out of office
window onto ledge outside third storey of building. She
had fallen from ledge & had sustained injuries.

Court found that, by assaulting, confining & threatening


to kill P, D intentionally committing wrongful act. This
wrongful act factually caused P to fall from ledge &
sustain injuries. P’s attempt to escape via outside ledge
did not affect the chain of causation to such extent as to
preclude D from liability for damages. No considerations
of legal policy militated against D's liability. It was
eminently reasonable, fair and just to hold D liable. 
Van der Spuy v Minister of Correctional Services 2004
(2) SA 463 (SE)
P, bystander was shot by escapee during prison escape.
At least one escapee was considered a dangerous
person Prison officials having been negligent in not
preventing escape, particularly of dangerous person.

Common sense approach to causation adopted. General


kind of injuries sustained by P & general way in which P
sustained his injuries reasonably foreseeable. Damages
were not so remote that chain of causation to be
regarded as having been interrupted. D was held liable.
In Minister of Safety and Security and Others v W H
2009 (4) SA 213 (E)

A woman had been raped. Prior to this rape, there had


been a warrant for the arrest of the man and a
protection order. Three police officers had failed to
arrest P's rapist on the Saturday afternoon prior to the
rape on the Tuesday.

Court held that police were liable in delict for their


negligent failure to arrest the man before P was raped.
The harm was not too remote. The police inaction was
both the factual & legal cause of the rape. 
Medical negligence

In S v Rahman S-178-82
X had struck D on the head with a piece of wood. The doctors
subsequently failed to detect internal bleeding. D died.
Court held that subsequent failure to detect the bleeding did
not snap the causal link and X was found guilty of culpable
homicide.

In S v Rukonkunda S-27-85
X shot an elderly woman in the hip. She was taken to hospital
where she was bedridden. The woman died. The death
certificate indicated that the cause of death was bronchial
pneumonia. There was not medical negligence. The court
decided that there was no snap in the causal link and that X
was guilty of murder.
In R v Mubila 1956 (1) SA 31 (SR) at 33 X had inflicted a
wound upon D. D failed to follow medical advice and died.
Had he followed the medical advice he would not have died.
X was still held liable for the death. No break in causal link.
In R v Mabole 1968 (2) RLR 159 (G)
X stabbed D who was taken to hospital. Doctor concluded
that none of wounds was penetrating. Later D showed signs
of loss of blood-pressure and a raised pulse rate. To
determine cause, exploratory surgery was undertaken. As a
result of surgery, D developed a fatal pulmonary embolism.
Court held that there was no break in the causal chain. It
was a reasonably predictable consequence of attack that D
would require medical attention and, in the present state of
medical knowledge, mistakes in diagnosis and treatment are
a commonplace. Provided that medical attention is given
bona fide and with reasonable efficiency, X cannot complain
of such mistakes.
The thin skull rule
Applies in delict, as it does in criminal cases. Reasonably
foreseeable that some people in society suffer from ailments
and other physical conditions which make them more
susceptible to injury or more serious injury than persons who
do not suffer from those conditions. General rule that Ds
must take their victims as they find them & if, for instance,
victim in collision caused by D’s negligence has weak heart &
shock of accident induces a fatal heart attack, D may be
liable to dependants even though person without that
condition would not have died in the accident.
In Wilson v Birt (Pty) Ltd 1963 (2) SA 508 (D) a worker on a
construction site suffered greater injury than the normal
person because he had a thin skull. Court however went on
to say that victim who is especially vulnerable must take
reasonable precautions to protect himself & failure to do so
will amount to contributory negligence.
In Smith v Leech, Brain and Co [1961] 3 All ER 1159 (QB) a
fleck of molten metal splashed on a workman’s lip because D
had failed to provide him with a shield. The burn turned
cancerous & he died. D was held liable for the death.
 
In Santam Insurance Co (Ltd) v Paget 1981 ZLR 73 (A) an
accident aggravated a pre-existing back complaint. The court
applied the thin skull rule.
In R v John 1969 (2) RLR 23 (A); 1969 (2) SA 560 (RA)court
held that if you assault a person moderately it is reasonably
foreseeable that he may have a thin skull and may end up dying.
In S v Ncube GB-47-80 during a minor tussle one of the people
involved, Y, suffered haemorrhaging into lung cavity probably
precipitated by exertion of struggle combined with tubercular
condition from which Y suffered. Court held that the thin skull
rule did not apply as death was not reasonably foreseeable in
the circumstances.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy