Legal Case Summary
R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273
Summary: Causation – negligence causing death – murder and manslaughter
Facts
Dalloway was standing on a horse and cart as it drove along a public road. Dalloway was not holding on to the reins as they were resting on the horse’s back. During his journey, a small child ran out in to the road in front of the cart and was killed by one of the wheels as it moved along. Dalloway was charged for driving his cart in a negligent fashion and subsequently causing the death of the child.
Issues
One of the key issues in this case was whether the result of Dalloway’s action had actually caused the death of the child. Justice Erle directed the jury that a negligent party, causing the death of another would be found to be guilty of manslaughter. On this basis, for Dalloway to be found guilty, the consequences of failing to hold the reins during his journey must have been considered to cause the death of the child.
Decision / Outcome
During the trial, expert evidence was produced which demonstrated that if Dalloway had been holding on to the reins tightly, he would not have been able to stop the cart before it collided with and killed the child. On this basis, the act Dalloway was culpable for (not holding the reins), was not the cause of the death of the child. As a result of this, the jury decided to acquit Dalloway, as they were satisfied that the child’s death could not have been avoided. The decision in this case was that Dalloway was not guilty.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary accurately describes the facts, legal issue, and outcome of R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273. The case remains good law as a foundational authority on factual causation in criminal law, establishing the principle that a defendant’s negligent act must be shown to have actually caused the prohibited result — often tested by the ‘but for’ standard. This principle continues to be applied in modern criminal law and is regularly cited in academic texts and judgments dealing with causation in homicide. No statutory or case law development has displaced the principle illustrated by this decision. The article is suitable for students studying causation in criminal law, though readers should note that the law of causation has been developed considerably by later cases such as R v White [1910] 2 KB 124, R v Smith [1959] 2 QB 35, and R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279, which address issues including intervening acts and the limits of ‘but for’ causation not covered in this summary.
