Causation

Question 1

But-For Factual Causation

Answer 1

If we go back in time and take away Ds actions, would the harm/crime still have occurred at the same time?

Question 2

Counterfactual Test

Answer 2

If the D had acted differently, would the same harm at the same time have occurred?

Question 3

Substantial Factor Test

Answer 3

When multiple Ds at the exact same time, guilty if either of their actions would have been sufficient to bring about the harm.

Question 4

Acceleration Test

Answer 4

Would the result have occurred at the same time?

Question 5

Aggravation

Answer 5

Allows counterfactual to be applied to when multiple individuals’ conduct caused the harm.

Question 6

Proximate Causation

Answer 6

The doctrine of “proximate” or “legal” causation serves the purpose of determining who or what events among those that satisfy the but-for standard should be held accountable for the resulting harm.

Question 7

Intervening Causes

Answer 7

Issues of proximate causation generally arise when an intervening force (a later but-for cause) exists.

Typically, an intervening cause will be: (1) an act of God; (2) an act of an independent 3rd party; or (3) an act or omission of the victim that assists in bringing about the outcome.

Superseding cause: an intervening cause which “breaks the causal chain.”

Question 8

Six factors to consider when determining whether an intervening cause is a superseding cause.

Answer 8

(1) De minimis contribution to harm
A “super tiny” contribution.

(2) intended consequences
The causal chain is weaker the lower the D’s mens rea is; we allow more culpable acts to be a smaller cause than non-culpable mental states.

(3) omissions
Another party’s omissions doesn’t (usually) break the causal chain.

(4) “Reasonable Foreseeability”
Responsive acts will break the chain if they are unforeseeable.
Coincidental acts will break the causal chain if they are unforeseeable.

(5) apparent safety
When the victim has reached a place of apparent safety, we will trace the D’s conduct no further.

(6) voluntary human action (intervention)
Pretty dispositive–usually breaks the causal chain.
Special rule for medical negligence: it is foreseeable and will not break the causal chain.