Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Criminal Law: General Elements of Liability
Legal causation and intervening acts
- 3 things to know
- Components 2 and 3
Overview
Operating and substantial cause test and thin skull rule.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
Which case held that medical treatment broke the chain of causation?
What test did R v Cheshire [1991] set for medical negligence breaking the chain?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
State the operating and substantial cause test.
Model answer
R v Smith [1959] held that a defendant remains liable while the original wound is an operating and substantial cause. Poor medical treatment does not break the chain unless the wound is merely the setting.
- 2
Which case held that medical treatment broke the chain of causation?
Model answer
R v Jordan (1956) quashed a murder conviction where the victim was given a drug he was known to be allergic to. The treatment was described as palpably wrong and not normal.
- 3
What test did R v Cheshire [1991] set for medical negligence breaking the chain?
Model answer
R v Cheshire [1991] set a high threshold for medical treatment breaking the chain of causation. Treatment must be so independent and so potent in causing death that the defendant's act becomes insignificant.
- 4
What is the thin skull rule?
Model answer
The thin skull rule requires the defendant to take the victim as found. A pre-existing weakness that makes the harm worse does not reduce liability.
- 5
Which case applied the thin skull rule to a religious belief?
Model answer
R v Blaue [1975] convicted a defendant of manslaughter where a stabbed Jehovah's Witness refused a blood transfusion. The refusal did not break the chain because the whole person must be taken as found.
- 6
When does a victim's attempt to escape break the chain of causation?
Model answer
R v Roberts (1971) held that a victim's escape breaks the chain only if the response was daft and unforeseeable. A foreseeable attempt to escape leaves the defendant liable.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Criminal Law: General Elements of Liability, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.