STUDENT NAME- ANISH MISHRA

REGISTERATION NUMBER- BC0210006

FACULTY NAME- MS. VEDAVALLI S.

DESIGNATION- WRITING FELLOW
SUBJECT NAME- LAW OF TORTS
ODD SEMESTER- 2021-2022

1
 DECLARATION
I Anish Mishra, Register Number- BC020006, hereby declare that this Research Paper /
Research Project work entitled “Intervening Acts or Events: Causation”, has been
originally carried out by me under the guidance and supervision of Ms. Vedavalli S., Writing
Fellow, Tamil Nadu National Law University, Tiruchirappalli – 620-027. This work has not
been submitted either in whole or in part of any Degree / Diploma at any University.
Place: Tiruchirappalli
Date: 28th October 2021

2
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………....4-5
LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………………………………..……5

1-CAUSATION.................................................................................................................. 6-11
1.1- FACTUAL CAUSATION ......................................................................................... 6-8
1.1.1- “BUT FOR” (SINE QUO NON) TEST……………………………..…………..6-7
1.1.2- “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST”.....................................................................7-8
1.2- LEGAL CAUSATION (“PROXIMATE CAUSE”)…………...…………..……8-9
1.3- “NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS (NEW INTERVENING ACT)”………...9-10

2- IMPORTANT RULES/PRINCIPLES RELATED TO CAUSATION.................... 11-12

2.1- THIN SKULL RULE (EGGSHELL SKULL) ......................................................... 11

2.2- THE “DILEMMA” PRINCIPLE .............................................................................. 12
2.3- DE MINIMIS PRINCIPLE……………………………………………………..…….12

3- UNDERSTANDING THE DIMENSIONS IN CAUSATION……………………..13-14

3.1- CAUSATION AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE…...……………………….13
3.2- PROBLEMS IN PROVING CAUSATION……………….……………………..13-14

CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………...………15

3
INTRODUCTION-
Causation, in Law of Torts, refers to the relationship of cause and effect between one event
and the result. In simple words, plaintiff must prove that injury caused to him, was because of
the defendant’s action/negligence. Perhaps, by this definition we can infer, that its use must
be very common in court of law. And has been subject to rigorous analysis over years by
legal scholars and judges. Though earlier, it was interpreted by the judges in a very broad
manner, but now it has been narrowed down.
This is the paradigm followed by judges while analysing cases- would “Y” have occurred, if
“X” had not occurred? Did a person do “Y” because of “X”? Did “X” lead directly to “Y”?
Also, you need to remember about “post hoc ergo propter hoc” reasoning - “after which
therefore because of which.” The mere fact that “Y” occurs after “X” is not proof that “X” is
the cause of “Y”. This might be sounding confusing, but as we understand every aspect of the
law, it becomes less complex.
According to William L. Prosser1, "There is perhaps nothing in the entire field of law which
has called forth more disagreement, or upon which the opinions are in such a welter of
confusion. Nor, despite the manifold attempts which have been made to clarify the subject, is
there yet any general agreement as to the proper approach."2 Causation cannot be condensed
into a single concept. Though in one look, readers might think, that it could be closed in the
ambit of defendant and plaintiff, only. But in reality, other factors like- Act of God,
Plaintiff’s own fault, third party involved, etc, also affect principles of causation. Also, while
analysing the facts, many other instances are taken by the court, like whether he/she was
having any kind of legal duty to act in that manner; whether the harm and damages were from
the acts of the accused; whether accused act was against public policy; and many more.
Even in this research paper, the author has tried to highlight the most important, yet diverse
concepts of Causation. First chapter, “Causation” talks about three concepts- Factual
causation, legal causation and Novus Actus Interveniens. Second chapter, “Important
rules/principles related to Causation”, highlight about those rules/principles that are evolved
over a period of time. And now is frequently used by different Jurisdictions. Third Chapter
(which is last, but not the least important), “Understanding the dimensions in Causation”,
deals with two questions- “How causation and contributory negligence are related?” and
“What are the problems in proving Causation?”. Overall, many case laws help is also taken,
while explaining different aspects of Causation.
In this research paper, the objective will be to understand the factual and legal causation, as
they both play a major role while scrutinizing the facts of the case. We will also understand
the importance of lawyers, while framing or improving the rules in Causation. Also, about the
different type of rules/principles, which developed over the years.

1
“William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 236 (4th ed. 1971).”
2
“id., at 236.”
4
In total three questions will be dealt by the author-
1: Do both the causation (factual and legal) are important to convict or acquit the defendant?
If yes, then how they are important? And are they interconnected? If no, then how we are
applying causation?
2: What kind of problems are faced while proving causation?
3: Are the laws made for applying causation is precise or absurd, with respect to different
jurisdictions?
Also, the author will use Analytical analysis, for explaining different aspects of
Intervening Acts or Events. And will go through different landmark judgements for
analysing its (Causation) application in real life.

LITERATURE REVIEW-
1- Principle of Tort Law (4th edition) by Vivienne Harpwood
In this book, the author has beautifully explained different aspects of causation.
And tried to make concepts simple. The explanations and reasoning by the book’s
author is top notch. All in all, it helped a lot, during research of this project.
2- Winfield And Jolowicz on Tort (19th edition) by Edwin Peel and James
Goudkamp
The beauty about this book is to explain concepts in an intriguing manner. It
explores those part of causation, which is rarely touched. And help to gain a
different perspective, in the way Causation is analysed.
3- Ratanlal and Dhirajlal: The Law of Torts (26th edition) by Ratanlal
Ranchhoddas, Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore, and Guru Prasanna Singh
It is considered one of the most trusted book for law students. Not just because of
it’s easy to understand language, but also the authors’ way of explaining concepts
in a crisp manner.
4- Causation in Tort Law by Richard W. Wright
The main focus of the author in this Journal article is on narrowing down
Causation. As many times, different jurisdictions apply it in a broad manner.
Except this, other areas like factual nature of causation is also explored.
5- Causation in Tort Law: An Economic Approach by William M. Landes and
Richard A3
In this journal, authors have explored different cases, which can occur in
causation. Also, help of real cases is also taken. Everything is explained in an

33
“William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Causation in Tort Law: An Economic
Approach, 12 J. Legal Stud. 109 (1983).”

5
 elaborative manner, to get a better overview. And causation is explained in an
economic perspective.

6
Chapter 1-

CAUSATION-
When we talk about personal injury law suit, we mainly have to prove that the harm caused
to plaintiff, from an accident or injury, is indeed caused by defendant’s negligence. And he/she
is legally and factually liable for it. And a main element in this claim is causation. The theory
of causation consists mainly of two elements- Factual Causation and Legal Causation. Both of
the elements are very important for the plaintiff, as he/she needs to prove them in negligence
law suit.

I. FACTUAL CAUSATION (“CAUSE IN FACT”)

It is the starting point of the chain, that causes an event. If it is not present, then this event
would not have occurred. Consider this motor vehicle accident’s scenario, “A” is driving his
car and approaching an intersection with a green light. As he moves through the intersection, a
vehicle driven by “B” collides with him. A successive investigation determines that “B” broke
the law, and ran a red light. In this case, we can clearly conclude, that the factual cause is B’s
action (of running the red light). But in some cases, factual causation is bit typical to
understand, like suppose, “A” is driving in the left lane of a 2-lane road. And “B” is driving in
the right lane of the same 2-lane road. A pedestrian suddenly runs into the right lane. “B”
swerves her car to avoid the pedestrian and collides with “A”. Now to check who was correct
in this case, either “But for Test” or “Substantial factor Test” is used.

A. “BUT FOR (SINE QUO NON) TEST”

To solve previously discussed hypothetical case, Courts of different jurisdiction mainly
rely on “But For (Sine Quo Non) Test”. This test asks a simple question, “But for the
defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred?” If the answer is no, then the action
caused the harm, and vice-versa. It checks the accused party’s conduct. And it works
like a filter, which help us to find out, if we can link the defendant to the consequence.
To understand it in a better way, the author of this research paper will like to highlight
and one landmark case, where it was applied.
Carsolegie Steamship Co. Ltd v. Royal Norevegian Government4
In this case, court didn’t choose to use “But-For-Test” to reassess the facts. If it
was applied then the outcome might be opposite. Now let’s talk about the facts
of the case, so two owners of the ship, collided with each other (Because of
defendant’s fault). And because of this incident, plaintiff had to take his ship to
the United States of America for the repairment purpose. While he was sailing,
he got hit by heavy storm. And as a result, his ship suffered more damages.
When he reached to his destination, the total time taken for his ship to rejuvenate
was 50 days approximately (If he was not hit by the storm, then it would take10
days only). Moving forward, plaintiff sued the defendant, and asked for the
damages of storm too, from him (Defendant).

4
“ Carsolegie Steamship Co. Ltd v. Royal Norevegian Government [1952] AC 292 HL.”
7
 The Court held that the plaintiff could not claim for the loss to the ship which
was caused due to heavy weather. As it was due to the intervention of nature,
which was independent of the defendant’s act. And hence, the case fall within
the ambit of “Novus Actus Interveniens (new intervening act)”.

In the above case, ‘but for’ test should have been applied, i.e. ‘But for the
defendant’s act, would the harm have occurred?’ And the answer is “no”. Since
without defendant’s act of collision, the plaintiff would not have taken the ship
to the United States of America and consequently wouldn’t have suffer heavy
weather injuries. So, the damages should not be considered too remote and the
defendant should be held liable.

But in spite of using this test oftentimes by the Courts, it still has some loopholes, which can
go against the principle of natural justice. Let’s take a hypothetical scenario, suppose “A” is
heading towards south direction in his car. As he crosses an intersection, he is struck by “B”,
who is traveling in west direction, as well as by “C”, who is traveling east. (Point to be noted,
both of them were over speeding and broke the traffic rules). As the result of the collision, he
(“A”) suffered deep injuries.
Now, under the but-for test we must ask: But for the vehicle traveling south, would the harm
have occurred? The answer is YES. As “A” still would have been injured because of the
vehicle traveling from the east. So, the vehicle traveling east is not negligent. The same holds
true for the vehicle traveling west. Now as the result of this type of unfairness, many
jurisdictions also rely on “Substantial factor test”.

B. “SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST”-

Under the substantial factor test, the court consider whether the defendant's actions were a
substantial factor in causing the injury. This test gives the court more scope to find that
multiple parties caused an accident. And helps to get clarity in cases, like previously
discussed. Now to understand its significance more clearly, let’s take an example, suppose
defendant causes one fire, and another defendant causes another fire, and due to the
convergence of the them, plaintiff loses his house.5
Even if defendant didn’t start a fire, plaintiff’s house could still have been destroyed by the
other fire. How can we be sure that the defendant’s fire destroyed the house? In these cases,
courts might apply the substantial factor test and ask whether the defendant’s fire was a
“substantial” factor in causing the damage to the plaintiff’s house.6 There may be other tests
that a court will apply, but the substantial factor test is the most common. The court will ask
whether defendant’s fire was a substantial cause of the fire that damaged plaintiff’s house.

5
“See, Uslawessentails, What’s the difference between “but for” and “substantial
factor” causation?, USLawEssentails, (Feb 14, 2015).”
https://uslawessentials.com/2015214whats-the-difference-between-but-for-and-substantial-
factor-causation/

6
“Supra note, at 2.”
8
Hence, solving the problem of “But for test”. Let’s understand it with an Indian landmark
Judgement.
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India7-
This case was originated in the aftermath of Oleum gas leak from Shriram Food
and Fertilisers Ltd. complex at Delhi. This gas leak occurred soon after the
infamous “Bhopal Gas leak tragedy” and created a lot of chaos in Delhi, as people
thought that history might be repeated. As the result of the leak, one worker of the
company died (due to cancer) in the incident, and few were hospitalized. Court
concluded them liable, under Absolute Liability. But what if defendant (owner)
asks the court, whether the factory’s asbestos was a substantial factor in causing
the cancer or whether other factors too, played a far more significant role? To
answer this question, Court can use “Substantial Factor Test”.
II. LEGAL CAUSATION (“PROXIMATE CAUSE”)
As we saw above, that the first step to analyse defendant’s act is factual causation.
Now moving forward, if factual causation is proved, then the next step is to check,
legal causation. Legal causation can be defined as that type of causation, which
requires proof, that the defendant's conduct was sufficiently connected to its
occurrence. Mainly, it should not be unforeseeable, as it would be unfair towards
the defendant. In this, substantive and operative cause are important elements.
Let’s understand it with an example, suppose “X” car’s one tire got punctured, but
as he was not aware about the process of changing tires, he took help from the
stranger named “Y”. Later, while travelling, because of some technicalities, his
changed tire started crumbling, and he got into a fatal accident.
Now, if we go with factual causation, then “Y” is the cause of the accident, but
here “Y” (defendant) didn’t reasonably anticipated that their actions could result
in the injuries that actually occurred. As it is the remote cause, we cannot make
him liable (going with the principle of legal causation). Like in this hypothetical
case, it helped in real life cases too. So, let’s analyse one of them.
R v Cheshire8
In this case, defendant shot a man, following an argument. Later, the victim was
admitted to the hospital. But due to medical staff’s negligence, he died shortly
after. However, the defendant was convicted for his crime. The court relied on the
fact, that the medical staff was not much negligent in work, so they didn’t change
the chain of causation. And also, defendant played a huge role in this whole
scenario. Even if we apply But-for-Test, he still will be liable. So, he (Defendant)
is having no ground to plead. Even in the court of appeal, defendant’s argument
was discarded, by referring to the earlier judgement of R v Jordan9.
By analysing above case, we can infer that, if we don’t show factual and legal causation, then
we break the chain of events. Specially in legal causation- substantive, operative cause and
foreseeability are really important.

7
“M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.(1986) 1 SCR 819 (India).”
8
“R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844.”
9
“R v Jordan [1956] 40 Cr App R 152.”

9
 III. “NOVUS ACTUS INTERVENIENS (NEW INTERVENING
ACT)”
It is often known as an isolated Tort, where an initial wrong doer starts the causal
chain of action, but because of the new intervening act, his action becomes
immaterial (as novus actus broke the causal chain). “This is most likely to be the
case when the two possible causes are separate in time. However, judges often use
the concepts which they have created as a means of arriving at the decisions which
they consider to be the most desirable in the circumstances.”10
When we talk in respect to factual causation, novus actus breaks the concatenation,
between the original defendant’s act, and his/her repercussions. Whereas, when it
(novus actus) is scrutinized with respect to legal causation, the main focus is on
foreseeability, as natural justice should be maintained. Also, as it is a new
intervening act, so except original wrong doer, many other factors can disrupt the
causal chain, like Act of God, third party, or injured person himself/herself. To
understand it in a more elaborative manner, let’s see few cases.

i. ACT OF GOD (Nicolas v. Marshland11)

In this case, an artificial lake was created by the accused person
through stopping the natural stream of water. Later, due to very
harsh rainfall his artificial lake got destroyed. And caused lots of
damage to the claimant. Moving forward, the claimant sued the
appellant. And the appellant asserted for the “Novus Actus
Interveniens”. It was held by the court, that defendant was not liable.
As any prudent person cannot predict such harsh rainfall.

ii. Intervention by the claimant himself/herself (McKew v. Holland

and Hannen and Cubitts (Scotland) Ltd12)
In this case, the claimant suffered an injury on his leg at the work
place, due to the negligence of the appellant. Soon, he went to
examine his flat. As he was about to go down the stairs, his leg
started crumbling, and he fall and break his ankle. Later, the claimant
sued the appellant, pursuing it as repercussions of the appellant’s
negligence for the injury.
The Court rejected the claim made by the claimant. and spoke that
claimant didn’t took reasonable steps. As he should be more aware
about his condition, and according to that only take decision, like
taking help from family members, while coming down the stairs.

10
“Vivienne Harpwood, Principles of Tort Law 151 (Cavendish Publishing Limited, 4th edn,
2000).”
11
“Nichols v Marsland [(1876) 2 ExD 1.”
12 “McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621.”

10
 iii. Plaintiff being the wrongdoer in Causation (Wright v. Lodge
[1993]13)-
In this case, defendant’s car was not working properly. So as a result
he had stopped it in the middle of the road (Point to be noted, there
was fog). He was trying to ignite up his car, but was not getting us.
Soon, a massive truck who was moving against the permissible limit
crashed with his car. The collision was so big, that truck damaged
other two vehicles too.
Later, when this case went to the court, plaintiffs (Two people who
suffered in the crash) pleaded from the damages from both of them
defendant (car driver and truck driver). However, court made truck
driver liable only. As he was more negligent. And car driver, break
the chain of causation.

13
“Wright v Lodge[1993] 4 All ER 299.”
11
Chapter-2
Important rules/principles related to Causation-
I. Thin Skull Rule (Eggshell Skull)-
It is a legal doctrine, used in tort law system. According to general rule, “The
defendant must take their victim as they find them.” It means that, if defendant
causes injury to the plaintiff, then he/she cannot take the defence, that the plaintiff
would have suffered less damage, “if he had not unusually thin skull or an usually
weak heart”.14 In simple terms, pre-existing medical condition could make someone
more likely to suffer an injury in an ensuing accident, in compare to a perfectly
healthy person without any medical condition. For an example, “A (plaintiff)”
suffers a fractured leg. And further while returning to his home from car. He got hit
by “B (Defendant)”, who was driving negligently. And as a result, his condition got
more fatal. At the trial, the negligent driver who caused the accident offers evidence
that a previous injury weakened the bone and made it more susceptible to fracturing.
The thin skull rule of personal injury law would prevent the defence from defeating
the victim’s claim for compensation.

The thin skull rule explained that a party at fault in causing an accident and an injury
cannot avoid responsibility for paying compensation, because of a pre-existing
medical condition. That makes the victim more susceptible than others to being
injured.
i. Meah v. McCreamer (1985)15-
In this case, due to defendant’s negligence, plaintiff suffered the personality
change from a brain injury. Later, this change resulted in sexual assault and
the harmed three females by knife. Later, defendant argued that the
‘personality change’ in the plaintiff’s sex behaviour being the intervening
cause of action between the injury caused to him (plaintiff) in the accident
and his sexual conduct, so the plaintiff was not entitled for damages.
However, it was held that the defendant is liable to pay for the damages,
since the plaintiff’s unreasonable actions were caused from the brain injury.
Thus, the defendant cannot claim the defence of Novus Actus Interveniens.

II. THE “DILEMMA” PRINCIPLE-

According to this principle, an intervening act will not break the chain of causation,
if it can be established that the intervening character was not fully responsible for
his actions, as he was put in a dilemma by the original character.16Let’s understand
it, with a case law-

14
“Dulieu v. white, [1901] 2 KB 669.”
15
“Meah v McCreamer[1985] 1 All ER 367.”
16
“Supra note 10, at 151.”

12
 i. Edwin Lord and Another v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co17
In this case, two ships (Manchester Regiment and Oropesa) were collided
with each other (Both were in equal fault). Later it was found that,
Manchester Regiment (one of the ship) was more brutally damaged by
collision as compare to the other ship. Moving forward, while the rescue
operation was in place, Manchester Regiment thought that Oropesa will help
them in this disaster. But they didn’t receive any help, even though they
were capable of helping. Later they were sued by one of the deceased family
member of Manchester Regiment).
The court held that the chain of causation is not broken. Even though they
were negligent. As it was do or I situation. Also, we cannot expect him to
work like a normal person in those conditions. So, he is not liable.

III. DE MINIMIS PRINCIPLE-

It is a Latin expression, which means “pertaining to minimal things”. In simple
terms, it can be defined, that to make defendant’s act substantial, it should more
than trivial. The legal history dates back to the 15th century.18 For an example, “A”
got wounded by the pin. And “B” got by a knife. Now, in this scenario, A’s case is
obviously trivial, while B’s case is substantial. By this example, we can understand,
that this principle is used by different jurisdictions, even in case of causation, to
check the substantiality.

17
“Edwin Lord and Another v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co (1943) 1 AII ER 211 (CR).”

18
“Max
L. Veech & Charles R. Moon, "De Minimis Non Curat Lex", 45 Michigan Law
Review. 537, 538 (1947) (quoting Thomas Branch, Principia Legis et Æquitatis 36 (William
Waller Hening ed., T. H. White, 4th London ed. 1824)).”
13
CHAPTER-3
UNDERSTANDING THE DIMENSIONS IN CAUSATION-
I. CAUSATION AND CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE-
Causation is relevant in deciding whether the claimant has contributed to the damage
suffered by not taking sufficient care for his or her own safety.19 That’s why it is really
important that jurisdiction rely on this scenario too, while analysing causation cases.
As sometimes, claimant might have also contributed to his/her injury. If we see in the
case of Australian law, the defendant carries the onus of establishing causation, by
claiming contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff or a reduction in damages
based on the negligence of the plaintiff's employer under section 151Z of Workers
Compensation Act 1987 (WCA).20
March v. E. & M. H. Stramare Pty Ltd21
In this case, the truck of the defendant was in the middle of the road. Later, an
intoxicated person while driving a motor cycle crashed with the truck. And as a result,
he suffered injuries. Later, the plaintiff sued the defendant pleading that he cannot
park his car in this middle of the road. And he totally negligent. He was having a
responsibility to take care of other people, who are travelling. The Court held that, he
was held liable for contributory negligence to the extent of 70%. As it was his fault
majorly (being intoxicated).

II. Problems in proving Causation-

By analysing different aspect of causation. It might be inferred by most of the
readers, that the process and solutions are well-structured and the relevant laws
touch every scenario. And it’s very less chance that any stone left unturned. But in
reality, there still exist certain kind of loopholes, which is certainly exploited by
people. And as a result, it damage the whole paradigm set in causation.
In civil cases, a proposition must be proved ‘on a balance of probabilities’.22
Because of this, sometimes it becomes impossible for the plaintiff to prove
defendant’s fault. As he/she can rely on multiple factors. For an example, suppose
a baby developed certain kind of abnormalities, due to negligence by the medical
staff during birth. Now, defendant can take help of many factors like- it could be
inherited disease, something happening during the gestation period (due to no ones
fault), or prove that it was undetectable by the ultrasound machine, and many more.
Some landmark cases like- Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw (1956)23, Hotson v
East Berkshire HA (1987)24; Stovold v Barlows (1995)25; Allied Maples Group v

19
“Supra note 9, at 157.”
20
“WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT 1987.”

21
“MARCH v. STRAMARE (E. and M.H.) PTY. LTD.(1991) 171 CLR 506.”
22
“Supra note 9. at 155.”
23
“Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613.”
24
“Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 2 All ER 909.”
25
“Stovold v Barlows [1996] PNLR 91”.
14
 Simmons and Simmons (1995)26; etc can also be scrutinized by the reader, to
understand this problem in a more elaborative manner. Also, seeing the complexity
of this law, it is also important in legal practice. As though judges play a huge role
in evolving or improving the Causation laws. But the dark horse in this process are
lawyers. As they present facts or case, and help judges to set the precedents.

CONCLUSION-
By analysing these many facts about causation, we can say that, it might instinctively look like
straight forward. But in reality, it is far more complex to interpret. As cases can sometimes be
very difficult to understand. Because of various other components. Even repeated efforts to
make it simple can make it more confusing. Though in this article, the author had tried to
elucidate Causation with the case laws. But still some scope of improvement is left, and further
more research is needed.
If we talk about three research questions, then in each chapter we get their answer, respectively.
Let me highlight it here, for the reader’s convenience.
1- Did both the causation (factual and legal) are important to convict or acquit the
defendant? If yes, then how they are important? And are they interconnected? If no,
then how we are applying causation?
- In the first chapter, author has explained two concepts of causation, with the help of
landmark cases. So, we can infer that yes, both of these are important to convict or acquit
someone. And they are interconnected too. As if any part is missing, the whole causation
concept will derail.
2- What kind of problems are faced while proving causation?
- In third chapter, this question’s answer is discussed thoroughly, with the relevant case
laws.
3- Are the laws made for applying causation is precise or absurd, with respect to different
jurisdictions
- Now after completing the research, we can conclude that though earlier it was very
broad and absurd law. But now with time it is evolving, and getting more precise with
the help of different rules, principles, judgments from the countries like Australia,
United Kingdom, and the United States of America.
I hope my research work will benefit readers to learn and understand Causation. And how,
many other aspects can be explored by analysing and inferring different judgements and statue.

26
“Allied Maples Group v Simmons and Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907.”
15
BIBLIOGRAPHY-
I. PRIMARY SOURCES:
i. CASE LAWS-
1- “Carsolegie Steamship Co. Ltd v. Royal Norevegian Government [1952] AC
292 HL.”
2- “M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors.(1986) 1 SCR 819 (India).”
3- “R v Cheshire [1991] 1 WLR 844.”
4- “R v Jordan [1956] 40 Cr App R 152.”
5- “Nichols v Marsland [(1876) 2 ExD 1.”
6- “McKew v Holland & Hannen & Cubitts Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1621.”
7- “Wright v Lodge[1993] 4 All ER 299.”
8- “Dulieu v. white, [1901] 2 KB 669.”
9- “Meah v McCreamer[1985] 1 All ER 367.”
10- Edwin Lord and Another v. Pacific Steam Navigation Co (1943) 1 AII ER 211
(CR).”
11- MARCH v. STRAMARE (E. and M.H.) PTY. LTD.(1991) 171 CLR 506.”
12- “Bonnington Castings v Wardlaw [1956] AC 613.”
13- “Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority [1987] 2 All ER 909.”
14- “Stovold v Barlows [1996] PNLR 91”.
15- “Allied Maples Group v Simmons and Simmons [1995] 4 All ER 907.”
ii. STATUES-
1- “WORKERS COMPENSATION ACT 1987.”

II. SECONDARY SOURCES:

i. BOOKS-
1- “Principle of Tort Law (4th edition) by Vivienne Harpwood.”
2- “ Winfield And Jolowicz on Tort (19th edition) by Edwin Peel and
James Goudkamp.”
3- “Ratanlal and Dhirajlal: The Law of Torts (26th edition) by Ratanlal
Ranchhoddas, Dhirajlal Keshavlal Thakore, and Guru Prasanna
Singh.”
4- “William L. Prosser, Handbook of the Law of Torts 236 (4th ed.
1971).”
ii. JOURNAL ARTICLES-
1- “William M. Landes & Richard A. Posner, Causation in Tort Law: An
Economic Approach, 12 J. Legal Stud. 109 (1983).”

16
 2- “Max L. Veech & Charles R. Moon, "De Minimis Non Curat Lex", 45
Michigan Law Review. 537, 538 (1947) (quoting Thomas Branch,
Principia Legis et Æquitatis 36 (William Waller Hening ed., T. H. White,
4th London ed. 1824)).”
3- Causation in Tort Law by Richard W. Wright.
4- Causation, Contributory Negligence and Volenti Non Fit Injuria by P.S
Atiyah, 43 Can. B. Rev. 609 (1965).

iii. WEBSITES-
1- Causation (Oxford Reference),
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095
555965
2- What’s the difference between “but for” and “substantial factor”
causation?, USLawEssentails, (Feb 14, 2015),
https://uslawessentials.com/2015214whats-the-difference-between-but-for-
and-substantial-factor-causation/
3- “How Does The Thin Skull Rule Apply To Personal Injury Claims,
Diamond and Diamond Lawyers,
https://diamondlaw.ca/how-does-the-thin-skull-rule-apply-to-personal-
injury-claims/amp/
4- But-For-Test, Legal Information Institute,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/but-for_test
5- “Pravesh Aggarwal, Foreign Cases on Novus Actus Interveneiens,
lawctopus (November 8, 2014).”
https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/foreign-cases-on-novus-actus-interveneiens/

17
18