Causation

Question 1

Elements of Causation

Answer 1

1. Actual Cause
   
   • “But-For” the acts of the individual, the incident would not have occurred.
2. Proximate Cause
   
   • The result must have been the natural and probable consequence of the defendants actions, or they must have been foreseeable

NOTE. Unforeseen results don’t necessarily mean that you fail the second causation prong.

Question 2

People v. Acosta

Answer 2

1. But for
   
   • But for the defendant creating a car chase would the accident have happened?
     
     • Satisfied. Court says that but for the car chase the choppers would not have been in the air.
2. Proximate Cause
   
   • Court adopts a “highly extraordinary result” standard
     
     • Under this standard a midair collision of two police helicopters was NOT considered highly extraordinary.

Question 3

People v. Arzon

Answer 3

Conduct does not have to be the only cause to satisfy the “but for” prong, it only needs to be a sufficiently direct cause of the incident and the ultimate harm is something which should have been foreseen.

• But For
  
  • But for the defendants fire, it is possible the fireman would not have been killed,
• Proximate cause,
  
  • Intervening superceding acts will break the chain but court says here that the defendants fire was an indispensible link in the chain of causation.

Question 4

People v. Warner-Lambert

Answer 4

Uncertainty as to the triggering event which caused the death might beat causation if the court does not wish to deter the activity the business/entity was engaged in at the time.

• Defendant had to foresee the SPECIFIC TRIGGER that caused the explosion.
• Policy. Don’t want to deter manufacturing.
• When you have a less culpable act, court is more likely to hold that there was an intervening cause.

Question 5

MPC 2.03(2)(a)

Transfered intent

Answer 5

Where the crime required that a defendant intentionally causes a particular result, the element is satisfied if the defendant accidently inflicts that injury on one person whilst intentionally trying to injure another.

Question 6

Intervening human causes

Answer 6

Generally, an intervening human cause BREAKS the chain of causation because human intervention IS USUALLY THE PRODUCT OF FREE WILL.

Question 7

State v. Stephenson

Answer 7

RoL

If the defendant inflicts both mental and physical injuries upon a victim which renders the victim MENTALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, and suicide follows, the intervening human actor DOES NOT break the chain of causation and the defendant will be guilty of murder

• NOTE. It was the defendants unlawful acts upon the victim which rendered her mentally irresponsible.

Facts

KKK Leader kidnapped and raped a girl and she committed suicide whilst in his possession.

Question 8

State v. Shabazz

Answer 8

Rol - Is medical malpractice foreseeable

Gross medical malpractice may permit the defendant to escape liability ONLY when it is the sole cause of the victims death.

• Ordinary medical malpractice DOES NOT break the chain of causation (it is foreseeable)
• Gross medical malpractice does IF it is the SOLE cause of the death.

Question 9

MPC 2.03 Causation

Answer 9

MPC 2.03 – Causation - Conduct is the cause of a result when:

(a)It is an antecedent but for [legal cause] which the result in question would not have occurred…

AND

When … causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor [or, for recklessness or negligence, within the risk of which the actor is or should have been aware] unless:

The actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as designed …and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or the gravity of his offense [proximate cause]