Causation Flashcards
How does the common law evaluate causation?
Actual Cause: But for the offenders conduct the result would have been different.
Proximate Cause:
a) Proximate: Cannot be too remote (see Kibbe, Acosta)
b) Foreseeability: If the resulting harm was ordinary and foreseeable then responsible (see Acosta)
In People v Acosta, Acostaled local police officers in a high-speed pursuit afterAcosta was suspected of driving a stolen car. During the chase,two police helicopters assisted in the pursuitfrom the air and collided resulting in deaths. Acosta was convicted of three counts of second degree murder. What was the courts ruling? was there adequate causation?
Here, but for Acosta’s conduct, the helicopters would not have been in a position to collide and was the actual cause of the collision. A midair collision is a “possible consequence which reasonably might have been contemplated.” There was “appreciable probability” that those involved in the chase may act recklessly or negligently in an attempt to apprehend him. Given these circumstances, the finding of proximate cause is appropriate. However, no reasonable juror could have found that Acosta acted with implied malice, therefore it is reversed.
In People v Arzon, the defendant set fire to a vacant building. Firefighters came and were entrapped by a second fire that went ablaze. Was Arzon responsible for “causing” the firemen’s injuries?
Yes, there was adequate causation. An individual is criminally liable if his conduct is a sufficiently direct cause of another’s death which should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the individual’s acts. It was foreseeable that firemen would have responded to the situation, thus exposing them to a life-threatening danger. The specific circumstances with which they suffered injuries is not relevant.
Will a defendant be considered the cause of criminal activity when an autonomous actor participates?
Ordinarily, a defendant will not be liable for autonomous actors. However, If the defendant committed final overt acts not just mere preparation then autonomous actors will not be a defense.
In People v. Campbell, Campbell was angry with Basnaw for sleeping with his wife and encouraged Basnaw to kill himself. When Basnaw said he had no weapon, Campbell gave Basnaw his loaded gun. Shortly thereafter, Basnaw shot and killed himself. Campbell was charged with murder. But the court held that although Basnow’s suicide was foreseeable, he was an autonomous actor and his death was not caused by Campbell.
In People v. Kevorkian, two older women suffering from medical conditions requested Kevorkian’s assistance in ending their lives. He provided them with his machine and inserted the needle into their arms. He was indicted on two counts of murder.
Were the women superseding autonomous actors?
Rule: A conviction for murder is proper if a defendant participates in the final overt act that causes death of another but not if the defendant is merely involved in the events leading up to the commission of the final overt act. The defendants actions went further than in in Campbell.
In Commonwealth v. Root, Root agreed to drag race at night on a rural highway. When the other man attempted to pass Root by driving into the opposite lane of traffic he was struck and killed by an oncoming truck. Did Root cause the other mans death?
No, the deceased driver engaged in intentional, highly reckless driving by swerving his car into oncoming traffic which resulted in his death. His actions were not forced upon him by Root. Root’s reckless conduct was not a sufficiently direct cause of the competing driver’s death to make him criminally liable. The victim as the autonomous actor is solely responsible. A direct causal connection is required because convicting accidental and fortuitous circumstances based on proximate cause is too harsh to be just.
In State v. McFadden, McFadden went drag-racing w/decedent. Decedent hit a car, killed himself and a 6-year-old. Did McFadden cause the deaths?
McFadden was convicted for aiding and abetting involuntary manslaughter, vicariously responsible because of their joint participation and committing involuntary manslaughter by recklessly engaging in a drag race. The acts of the defendants were contributing and substantial factors in bringing about the death of a man. Unlike Root, The foreseeability requirement of the proximate cause theory, coupled with the requirement of recklessness, will prevent the possibility of harsh or unjust results in involuntary manslaughter cases.
