Causation

Front 1

CL Approach (actual cause)

Back 1

But for causation- Test: But for D’s voluntary act(s), would the socialharm have occurred when it did?

Multiple actual causes- Acceleration: Contribution oraggravation w/out acceleration is not enough.

Front 2

Oxendine v.State

Back 2

Not enough evidence to show O as a but-for cause of sons death--> might have accelerate or might have just aggrevated

Front 3

Proximate Cause

Back 3

Serves the purpose ofdetermining who or what events (voluntary v. involuntary) among those thatsatisfy the but-for test be held accountable for the resulting harm

Front 4

Direct v. Intervening Cause

Back 4

Direct cause: An act that is adirect cause of social harm is also a proximate cause of it

InterveningCause: anintermediate cause that breaks the chain of causation and produces the socialharm, but only comes into play after the D’s voluntary act has beencommitted.

Front 5

Test for Intervening Cause

Back 5

Whenshould intervening cause sever Ds criminal liability for the social harm?

Forms 1. Wrongdoing by a 3rd party, 2. Victimsown contributory negligence, or 3. Natural force/ act of god

Whenone of these does relieve the D of criminal responsibility--> that intervening eventis called the “superseding cause” ofthe social harm

Front 6

Factors to determine when an intervening cause supersedes the Ds conduct (6)

Back 6

1. Deminimis contribution of social harm

2. Reasonably foreseeability (dependent- doesnt break chain v. independent- does break the chain)

3. Intended consequences doctrine- look to Ds mens rea

4. Apparent safety doctrine- Evenif D created dangerous situation, no longer responsible if the dangeroussituation is over, the V reaches a place of apparent safety

5. Free, delieberate informed human intervention

6. omissions

Front 7

People v. Rideout

Back 7

NO liability when D hit another drive and they both were on the side of the road-- b/c apparent safety doctrine + voluntary human intervention removes Ds liability