| 单词 | Causation |
| 释义 | 因由 The relation of cause to effect. Criminal law - A requirement of the definition of the actus reus of a crime. Where the actus reus requires certain consequences to occur, it is necessary to prove that the accused’s conduct caused those consequences to occur: R v Dalloway (1847) 3 Cox CC 273. The conduct need not be a direct cause of the consequence; a person may cause an event through the agency of others: Muhandi v R [1957] Crim LR 814. The accused’s conduct need not be the sole or the effective cause of the consequence; it is sufficient if the accused’s conduct is a cause which cannot be dismissed as trivial or as merely part of the history of the events leading up to the commission of the crime: R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133. Issues of causation arise most frequently in cases of unlawful homicide. See also Actus reus. Tort - A requirement in tort and contract that limits the defendant’s responsibility for the plaintiff’s loss. The plaintiff must show a sufficient connection between the breach and the loss suffered: Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871, AC 1074. The plaintiff has to prove that, but for the defendant’s breach, the loss or damage in question would not have been suffered: Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068, [1969] 1 QB 428. The ‘but for’ test of causation is not the exclusive test: Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, supra. Most formulations of the rule state that the requirement of causation is satisfied if the breach was a cause of the loss or damage: Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] 1 All ER 615, AC 613 (HL). See also Breach of contract; Causation at law; Causation in fact; Contract; Remoteness; Tort. 因果關係。 刑法 - 罪行的犯罪行為其定義中的一個要求。當犯罪行為要求某些後果發生時，則須證明被告人的行為引起該等後果：R v Dalloway (1847) 3 Cox CC 273。該行為不一定要直接引起該後果；某人可通過另一人的代理人引起事件的發生：Muhandi v R [1957] Crim LR 814。被告人的行為無需是該後果的單獨或實際原因；若被告人的行為不因屬微不足道或僅為導致犯罪的事件一部分而被撤銷，則已足夠：R v Hennigan [1971] 3 All ER 133。有關因由的問題最通常在非法殺人的案件中出現。另見 Actus reus。 侵權法 - 在侵權法及合約法中，限制被告人為原告人的損失負上責任的規定。原告人必需證明違約與所受的損失之間有充分關連：Wilsher v Essex Area Health Authority [1988] 1 All ER 871, AC 1074。原告須證明要不是被告的違約，有關的損失或損害則不會發生：Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee [1968] 1 All ER 1068, [1969] 1 QB 428。因由的「要不是」驗證方法並非唯一的驗證方法；Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital Management Committee, 見上文。該規則的大多數闡述均指出，如違約是有關的損失或損害的一個原因，則可符合因由的規定：Bonnington Castings Ltd v Wardlaw [1956] 1 All ER 615, AC 613（上議院）。另見 Breach of contract; Causation at law; Causation in fact; Contract; Remoteness; Tort。n. |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。