Chloejaes
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#1
Has anybody got a case for “a natural but unpredictable event” breaking the chain of causation?
0
reply
Dobby's Phoenix
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 2 years ago
#2
I can't find a British case, but there is the case below from New Zealand which I suppose you could use as persuasive? That's what i'll do but i'm hoping it's not going to come up in a big way.

in Hart (1986), D assaulted V, leaving her lying conscious on a beach below the high-water mark. V was subsequently drowned by the incoming tide. The court of appeal held that D had caused the death of the victim. A freak wave is an unpredictable event so it is likely to be unforeseeable and would have amounted to an intervening act in the case of Hart if V was left lying above high water mark. But in a situation in which an unconscious victim is left below the tide line and drowns when the tide comes in. This is a wholly foreseeable occurrence so it will not break the chain of causation. Even though the defendant did not drown the victim directly, he put the victim in a position where it was foreseeable that the victim would drown so liability would be established.Hope this helped somewhat.

Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...-law-essay.php
1
reply
Chloejaes
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 2 years ago
#3
Thank you so much I’ll use it as persuasive!!

(Original post by sammorgan99)
I can't find a British case, but there is the case below from New Zealand which I suppose you could use as persuasive? That's what i'll do but i'm hoping it's not going to come up in a big way.

in Hart (1986), D assaulted V, leaving her lying conscious on a beach below the high-water mark. V was subsequently drowned by the incoming tide. The court of appeal held that D had caused the death of the victim. A freak wave is an unpredictable event so it is likely to be unforeseeable and would have amounted to an intervening act in the case of Hart if V was left lying above high water mark. But in a situation in which an unconscious victim is left below the tide line and drowns when the tide comes in. This is a wholly foreseeable occurrence so it will not break the chain of causation. Even though the defendant did not drown the victim directly, he put the victim in a position where it was foreseeable that the victim would drown so liability would be established.Hope this helped somewhat.

Source: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-...-law-essay.php
0
reply
lawstudent3057
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Do you have a case number or full title of this case, Hart (1986)??
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you have the space and resources you need to succeed in home learning?

Yes I have everything I need (54)
65.85%
I don't have everything I need (28)
34.15%

Watched Threads

View All