Question 3 [30]

X, a cashier in a supermarket, is shot in the stomach by Y during a robbery at the supermarket.

The bullet damaged the spinal cord of X, with the result that he is paralysed and is forced to

use a wheelchair. The doctors warned X that he must constantly shift his position in the

wheelchair to prevent compression sores. X's condition improves to such an extent that he is

able to return to work at the supermarket. However, he is hospitalised again later as a result

of septicaemia, from which he eventually dies six months after the shooting incident. A post

mortem investigation revealed that the septicaemia was the result of severe compression

sores which were caused by X's failure to move himself in the wheelchair. In addition, it

appears that X suffered from a blood disease since childhood, which made him more

susceptible to septicaemia than healthy people. X's dependants institute a claim against Y for

the loss of support. Y's only defence is that a causal link between his conduct and X's death

was absent.

3.1 For the purpose of this question (3.1) suppose that it was already established that Y had

the intention to harm X through his wrongful conduct. Now discuss the considerations

to be taken into account in determining whether Y should succeed in his defence. In

your answer refer to relevant case law (20)

3.2 Suppose that Mr X adhered to the instruction of the doctors after his initial recovery,

constantly shifted his position and that no compression sores developed, but that Mr X

died of the septicaemia caused by the blood disease he had since early childhood.

Would your answer differ from 3.1 and motivate your answer why. Refer to applicable

legal rules and case law (10)