Unnecessary and Insufficient Factual Causes
-
Jane Stapleton
Abstract
Law recognizes a necessary (i.e., but-for) factor as a factual cause. However, it is a common misconception that the but-for test is the exclusive test of factual causation. Longstanding case law reveals that a factor may be a factual cause of an outcome, even if it was neither necessary nor sufficient for it. This was recently unanimously confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Financial Conduct Authority v. Arch Insurance (UK) Ltd (2021). In the law, there seems to be a uniform concept of what it means to be a factual cause, one that is wider than necessity and includes unnecessary and insufficient factors which are recognized as factual causes across a wide variety of legal contexts. This uniform concept of factual cause can be captured in a forensically straightforward way in an “extended but-for test”. Appreciation of unnecessary and insufficient factual causes, which are common, provides a more coherent frame in which to view the outcomes of certain earlier cases. It also illuminates the importance for clarity of legal reasoning of separating the context-independent factual cause issue from context-dependent analytical stages such as the scope of the rule and remedy, including loss quantification.
© 2023 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Symposium Articles
- Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View
- Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook
- Analog Analogies: Intel v. Hamidi and the Future of Trespass to Chattels
- What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper
- Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages
- Sherman v. Department of Public Safety: Institutional Responsibility for Sexual Assault
- Putting “Duty” Back on Track
- Public Authority Liability for Careless Failure to Protect from Harm
- Unnecessary and Insufficient Factual Causes
- Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma
- Main Article
- The Tort of Discrimination
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Symposium Articles
- Private Nuisance: The UK Supreme Court Take a View
- Liking the Intrusion Analysis in In Re Facebook
- Analog Analogies: Intel v. Hamidi and the Future of Trespass to Chattels
- What We Talk About When We Talk About the Duty of Care in Negligence Law: The Utah Supreme Court Sets an Example in Boynton v. Kennecott Utah Copper
- Disentangling Immigration Policy From Tort Claims for Future Lost Wages
- Sherman v. Department of Public Safety: Institutional Responsibility for Sexual Assault
- Putting “Duty” Back on Track
- Public Authority Liability for Careless Failure to Protect from Harm
- Unnecessary and Insufficient Factual Causes
- Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma
- Main Article
- The Tort of Discrimination
