The term “causation” sounds too formal, too complicated. Let’s clear up what we’re talking about with an example of a causation chain.
| Abstract: | A -> B -> C |
| Example: | you get a cold from a friend -> you buy medicine -> the medicine is packaged wrong so you get severely sick -> you end up at the hospital |
It is obvious that events from very far away can still be connected in the chain. In our example, technically speaking, our friend caused the whole situation. Without them being sick, we wouldn’t even need to take medicine in the first place!
But did our friend legally cause our eventual sickness? There are three factors to consider.
Foreseeability
Between the friend’s involvement and the hospital, the medicine is packaged incorrectly. This third-party event is unforeseeable because we reasonably assume packaged products contain what the package says.
That broke the chain and our friend did not legally cause us to end up at the hospital.
Act of Nature, Act of Claimant
Let’s modify our example to demonstrate these two factors.
| Nature: | -> you get hit by lightning on the way home from the hospital -> you die |
| Claimant: | -> you forget to take the prescribed antibiotics -> you end up permanently paralyzed |
Highlighted Case: R v Pagett (1983)
TLDR: A man grabbed a pregnant teen to act as a human shield against a police officer. When the officer fired, he killed the girl. Did the officer’s firing of the gun break the chain of causation between the man and the girl’s death?
Held: No break in the chain. A reasonable person would likely know that using another person as a human shield against gunshots was likely to cause serious harm. It’s a foreseeable consequence.
The man is not off the hook.
If you’ve ever thought about suing your family, read this post. You might have to change your mind.