Law A2 help!!!

hiya! i'm just starting A2 crimal law- actus reus. In the causations section it talks about kimsey and i am really confused about this. I've tried looking it up on the internet but cant find anything.
Can anyone explain to me briefly what kimsey is or show me any websites that explain it?

Thank you

:smile:

Reply 1

zoea85

2

There doesn't seem to be much on the net at all but I found this: http://www.peterjepson.com/law/Lisa%20case%20notes%20(2571).pdf#search=%22Kimsey%20causation%22

It has the case facts of Kimsey (1996) on page 2 under the topic 'legal causation'.
I think the case illustrates that, to satisfy legal causation the actions of the defendant do not have to be substantial, i.e the whole cause of death, they can be part of the cause and the defendant can still be liable.
That's a bit of a guess though, it's a while since I did this and I never came across the case of Kimsey. Since there is so little on it, it is probably not a major case anyway so I wouldn't worry too much if you really can't find a definite answer on it. Sorry I can't be of more help!

Reply 2

Triplet1

OP

13

thank you for your help!!!!

:biggrin:

Reply 3

adampogonowski

1

zoea85

There doesn't seem to be much on the net at all but I found this: http://www.peterjepson.com/law/Lisa%20case%20notes%20(2571).pdf#search=%22Kimsey%20causation%22

It has the case facts of Kimsey (1996) on page 2 under the topic 'legal causation'.
I think the case illustrates that, to satisfy legal causation the actions of the defendant do not have to be substantial, i.e the whole cause of death, they can be part of the cause and the defendant can still be liable.
That's a bit of a guess though, it's a while since I did this and I never came across the case of Kimsey. Since there is so little on it, it is probably not a major case anyway so I wouldn't worry too much if you really can't find a definite answer on it. Sorry I can't be of more help!

Don't recall what your initial question was about, but this will doubtless help:

R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133,

Giving the judgment of the court, Lord Parker said, at page 264 of the report:

"There is nothing in the statute which requires the manner of the driving to be a substantial cause, or a major cause, or any other description of cause, of the accident. So long as the dangerous driving is a cause and something more than de minimis, the statute operates...Though the word 'substantial' does not appear in the statute, it is clearly a convenient word to use to indicate to the jury that there must be something more than de minimis, and also to avoid possibly having to go into details of legal causation, remoteness and the like."

This is where Kimsey [1996] derives its authority from. I have no idea why your book uses Kimsey when there are a lot more cases out there. Hennigan is a better one as it is older and referred to by Kimsey.

The cause of death must be an operating cause of the death. And it must be related to the cause of death i.e. a novus actus interveniens must not occur. It does not have to be the sole cause of death, so long as it was a cause above the de minimis range.

Reply 4

giospurs

Kimsey - operating and substantial has to be "more than a trifling link"

Law A2 help!!!

Related discussions

Articles for you