“The main test for establishing factual causation in an action for negligence- but for the defendant`s breach of duty the damage would not have occurred”.
a. OSCOLA for footnote:
Chris Turner `Unlocking Torts` (4th edn, Taylor &Francis 2014) 80
b. OSCOLA for bibliography:
Turner C, Unlocking Torts 4th edn. (Taylor &Francis) 2014
2. “Causation is established by proving that the defendant`s breach of duty was, as a matter of fact, a cause of the damage. To decide this issue the first question to be asked is whether the damage would have occurred but for the breach of duty. This known as the ‘but for’ test.”
a. OSCOLA for footnote:
Catherine Elliott and Francis Quinn, Tort Law (9th edn, Pearson Education 2013) 102
b. OSCOLA for bibliography: Elliott C and Quinn F, Tort Law 9th edn (Pearson Education) 2013
3. “ The starting point for …show more content…
Keith Patten ‘ Personal injury: the big question’ (2010) http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.westminster.ac.uk/uk/legal/home/home.do?randomNum=0.6446563064625492> accessed 1 Nov 2016
The article was about the importance of the ‘but for’ test, the starting point on the issue of a causation in negligence is always the ‘but for’ test as it examines and finds out the breach of duty and ‘but for’ test is just and filter that eliminates all unconnected acts or events. Furthermore, how almost every personal injury involves an application of the ‘but for’ test in order to find out why the injury was actually caused.
Danniel Bennet ‘Causation, apportionment and contribution, remoteness of damage, evidence, and liability without negligence’ (8th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2006)
2. The article was about how crucial the ‘but for’ test is particularly in a conduct of negligence, how it helps to prove the defendant`s wrongful, in order to hold the defendant responsible or liable of the fault, the ‘but for’ test should be used otherwise, if the wrong act cannot be proved the defendant cannot be held accountable of any wrong
a. OSCOLA for footnote:
Chris Turner `Unlocking Torts` (4th edn, Taylor &Francis 2014) 80
b. OSCOLA for bibliography:
Turner C, Unlocking Torts 4th edn. (Taylor &Francis) 2014
2. “Causation is established by proving that the defendant`s breach of duty was, as a matter of fact, a cause of the damage. To decide this issue the first question to be asked is whether the damage would have occurred but for the breach of duty. This known as the ‘but for’ test.”
a. OSCOLA for footnote:
Catherine Elliott and Francis Quinn, Tort Law (9th edn, Pearson Education 2013) 102
b. OSCOLA for bibliography: Elliott C and Quinn F, Tort Law 9th edn (Pearson Education) 2013
3. “ The starting point for …show more content…
Keith Patten ‘ Personal injury: the big question’ (2010) http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy.westminster.ac.uk/uk/legal/home/home.do?randomNum=0.6446563064625492> accessed 1 Nov 2016
The article was about the importance of the ‘but for’ test, the starting point on the issue of a causation in negligence is always the ‘but for’ test as it examines and finds out the breach of duty and ‘but for’ test is just and filter that eliminates all unconnected acts or events. Furthermore, how almost every personal injury involves an application of the ‘but for’ test in order to find out why the injury was actually caused.
Danniel Bennet ‘Causation, apportionment and contribution, remoteness of damage, evidence, and liability without negligence’ (8th edn, LexisNexis Butterworths 2006)
2. The article was about how crucial the ‘but for’ test is particularly in a conduct of negligence, how it helps to prove the defendant`s wrongful, in order to hold the defendant responsible or liable of the fault, the ‘but for’ test should be used otherwise, if the wrong act cannot be proved the defendant cannot be held accountable of any wrong