What is a factual causation?

The long accepted test of factual causation is the ‘but-for’ test. One asks whether the claimant’s harm would have occurred in any event without, (that is but-for) the defendant’s conduct. If it would, that conduct is not the cause of the harm.

What is the test for factual causation?

but-for test
The traditional approach to factual causation seeks to determine whether the injury would have happened even if the defendant had taken care. This is known as the but-for test: Causation can be established if the injury would not have happened but for the defendant’s negligence.

What are the 5 elements of delict?

A delict occurs when one party commits a wrong against another. The basic elements of delict are conduct, wrongfulness, fault, causation and damage. As a starting point, it is essential to realise that all five elements mentioned above must be present before a person can be set to be delictually liable.

What are the two types of causation?

There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the “but for” test: But for the action, the result would not have happened.

How is factual causation determined in a tort case?

( factual causation involves the question whether the damage was the result of the defendant’s conduct “in accordance with ‘science’ or ‘objective’ notions of physical sequence” (Fleming: The Law of Torts 179) how must this factual causal link be determined? ( most cases ( not difficult to decide whether causal link exists

How to determine a causal link in a case?

1. GENERAL causal link between defendant’s conduct and plaintiff’s damage is requirement for delict person only liable for damage caused by him causal link? – question of fact which must be answered in light of available evidence of each case many theories of causation have been developed to determine causal link

How is causation used in International Shipping Co v Bentley?

( International Shipping Co (Pty) Ltd v Bentley 1990 (1) SA 680 p.700: “In order to apply this test one must make a hypothetical enquiry as to what probably would have happened but for the wrongful conduct of the defendant.

Is there such a thing as legal causation?

This is sometimes called ‘legal causation’.” most cases it is quite evident that the damage should be imputed to the wrongdoer, so it is unnecessary to examine legal causation / imputability of harm in express terms