Comparative Study of Multiple Causation in the Iranian and Malaysian Tort Law
- *Corresponding Author:
- Bagheri P
National University of Malaysia
Tel: 603 8921 5555
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date April 23, 2016; Accepted date June 01, 2016; Published date June 07, 2016
Citation: Gandomkar H, Bagheri P (2016) Comparative Study of Multiple Causation in the Iranian and Malaysian Tort Law. Social Crimonol 4:134. doi:10.4172/2375- 4435.1000134
Copyright: © 2016 Bagheri P, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
This paper examines the concept of multiple causation. Causation is one of the important elements of tortious liability. Under this concept, the plaintiff must prove a causal link between the defendant’s harmful act and the damage suffered by him. If the plaintiff cannot prove this connection, he cannot succeed and his claim will fail. Sometimes, the alleged damage may be the result of a single cause. In this kind of situation, the “but for” test is applied. In some other cases, the damage may result from more than one cause, and all the causes together contribute to the final result (damage). This is referred to as multiple causation. In this latter situation, the causes may occur concurrently (at same time) or successively (one after the other), but all of them combine to create a single injury. So the main question that arises in such a situation is, which one of the causes can be held responsible for the injury. In answering this question, various legal systems have different solutions. The Malaysian tort law, for example, places emphasis on the “substantial factor” as the basic solution in multiple causation cases. In Iranian tort law, on the other hand, the emphasis is on what a reasonable person would in the ordinary course of things consider to be the cause of the injury (the “reasonable factor” test). The determination of this reasonable factor is usually done by the judge. Once this reasonable factor is determined, all the other causes will not be considered to be substantial factors. But in concurrent causation cases, all the causes will each be fully liable for the resulting damage. In the case of causes occurring successively, each cause will be liable for the damage caused by it. Based on the existing literature, this kind of research has never been undertaken and, is therefore, novel. The article is divided into five parts namely: (i) Introduction; (ii) Multiple causation under the Iranian tort law; (iii) Multiple causation under the Malaysian tort law; (iv) Comparative analysis of both legal systems; and (v) Conclusion.