What is but for in law?

Asked by: Dr. Melvina Barrows  |  Last update: September 1, 2022
Score: 5/5 (39 votes)

In the law of Negligence, a principle that provides that the defendant's conduct is not the cause of an injury to the plaintiff, unless that injury would not have occurred except for ("but for") the defendant's conduct.

What does but for mean in legal terms?

Primary tabs. The but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The test asks, "but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?" Of the numerous tests used to determine causation, the but-for test is considered to be one of the weaker ones.

What is the but for argument?

The but-for test says that an action is a cause of an injury if, but for the action, the injury wouldn't have occurred. In other words, would the harm have occurred if the defendant hadn't acted in the way they did? If the answer is NO, then the action caused the harm.

What is a but for causation?

An act from which an injury results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which the injury would not have occurred.

What is the but-for test UK?

Spanning both civil and criminal law, the but for test broadly asks: “But for the actions of the defendant (X), would the harm (Y) have occurred?” If Y's existence depends on X, the test is satisfied and causation demonstrated. If Y would have happened regardless of X, the defendant cannot be liable.

Causation # 1 - 'But For'

28 related questions found

Where is the but-for test used?

“But for” test in professional negligence compensation claims. If you have suffered financial loss as a result of the professional negligence of an accountant, architect, barrister, engineer, construction firm, IFA, insurance broker, lawyer, surveyor, valuer or other professional, you may be able to claim compensation.

What is but-for test in tort?

A simple test, called the 'but for' test is applied. All the claimant has to prove is that if it were not 'but for' the actions of the defendant then they would not have suffered the loss or damage.

What is the but-for test of factual causation?

Factual causation is established by applying the 'but for' test. This asks, 'but for the actions of the defendant, would the result have occurred?' If yes, the result would have occurred in any event, the defendant is not liable.

Can there be multiple but for causes?

The “but for” rule provides a simple method of analysis when there is only one defendant. However, what happens when there are several defendants? In such instances, the “but for” rule may not effectively determine cause.

What is the difference between but for causation and proximate cause?

Since but-for causation is very easy to show (but for stopping to tie your shoe, you would not have missed the train and would not have been mugged), a second test is used to determine if an action is close enough to a harm in a "chain of events" to be legally valid. This test is called proximate cause.

What is the but-for test in contract law?

The 'but for' test determines whether the harm suffered by a plaintiff was caused by the breach of the defendant's duty, on the basis the plaintiff would not have suffered harm 'but for' the defendant's breach.

What case was the but-for test established in criminal?

The 'but for' test was illustrated in the case R v Pagett [1] where a question was asked that whether the hostage would not have died but for the defendant's conduct.

How do you prove causation in negligence?

Causation (cause in fact)

The third element of negligence is causation. Causation requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant's breach of duty was the cause of the plaintiff's injury and losses. Another thing to consider is whether the defendant could have foreseen that his or her actions might cause an injury.

What is but for mean?

Legal Definition of but-for

: of or relating to the necessary cause (as a negligent act) without which a particular result (as damage) would not have occurred a but-for test of causation — compare substantial factor.

How do you use but for?

You use but for to introduce the only factor that causes a particular thing not to happen or not to be completely true. ... the small square below, empty but for a delivery van and a clump of palm trees. But for you, they might have given us the slip.

Who created the but-for test?

In formulating the but for test, Lord Denning said the following: "if the damage would not have happened but for a particular fault, then that fault is the cause of the damage; if it would have happened just the same, fault or no fault, the fault is not the cause of the damage." - Lord Denning, at 407.

What does res ipsa loquitur stand for?

Definition. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself."

What is the difference between being convicted and being found liable?

A person is liable or responsible for a crime when he or she has acted with criminal intent, as opposed to acting accidentally or lacking the ability to act deliberately. In the U.S. legal system, people may be punished for a crime only if they've been convicted of a crime—that is, found criminally liable.

What is novus actus?

Novus actus interveniens is Latin for a "new intervening act". In the Law of Delict 6th Edition, Neethling states that a novus actus interveniens is "an independent event which, after the wrongdoer's act has been concluded either caused or contributed to the consequence concerned".

What is oblique intent in criminal law?

The criminal law doctrine of oblique intent was developed at common law to deal with situations in which the agent acted without purpose or desire but where the harmful result of his conduct was foreseen at a very high probability.

What is the thin skull rule in law UK?

The principle that dictates that a defendant is liable for the full extent of the harm or loss to the claimant even where it is of a more significant extent than would have been expected, due to a pre-existing condition or circumstance of the claimant.

What do you mean by mens rea?

Mens Rea refers to criminal intent. The literal translation from Latin is "guilty mind." The plural of mens rea is mentes reae. A mens rea​ refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime. See, e.g. Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994).

Do you need to prove causation for assault?

Applying the usual principles of causation, it must be established that the defendant's assault caused the victim to suffer actual bodily harm.

What is the most difficult element of negligence to prove?

Many articles discuss what negligence is and how to prove it, but the least understood element among these four is causation. Additionally, out of these four elements, causation is typically the most difficult to prove, especially in medical malpractice cases.

What are the 4 defenses to negligence?

The most common negligence defenses are contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and assumption of risk.
Related Topics
  • What is Negligence?
  • Negligence A Duty of Care?
  • Negligence Breach of Duty of Care?
  • Causation?
  • Cause-in-Fact.