A Level Law Practice Exam

In the case of Smith, under what condition might a defendant avoid liability for death?

1. If medical negligence was substantial enough

2. If the direct cause was established by the victim

3. If there was no initial injury from D

4. If the original wound was no longer operable at death

The correct answer is: If medical negligence was substantial enough

A defendant might avoid liability for death if medical negligence was substantial enough, as this points to the principle of intervening causation, also known as novus actus interveniens. In cases where medical treatment following an injury is negligently administered, such negligence can sever the causal link between the defendant's actions and the victim's death. For a defendant to maintain that they should not be held liable, it must be shown that the medical negligence was a significant and independent cause of the death, beyond what the initial act could foreseeably lead to. In the context of this scenario, if it can be established that the medical care provided was so flawed that it effectively caused or significantly contributed to the victim's demise, then liability may shift away from the defendant. This aspect emphasizes the importance of the standard of care expected in medical situations and how failures in this duty can impact the chain of causation in legal terms. Thus, if medical negligence is identified as a substantial factor in the death, the defendant's liability could potentially be negated.