what is legal causation in criminal law

According to the Texas Judicial Branch, 1.5 million civil cases were filed in the state of Texas in 2018. Athey v Leonati, [1996] 3 SCR 458 at paras3435, 140DLR(4th)235. Haas was convicted of unlawful act manslaughter. Legal causation assesses whether additional contributory causes fall within the range of risks associated with the accuseds conduct and are therefore fairly ascribable to them. [103] Justice Hill Jr. reasoned that co-participants in a street race both assume responsibility for the danger created by this jointly maintained activity, including for the death of one of the driversan approach adopted by other courts in similar cases. [52] Independent acts are said to create new causal chains and sever the accuseds legal responsibility for a given result. Ce faisant, il expose les raisons pour lesquelles la causalit juridique a pour objet principal dattribuer quitablement les tendues des risques aux individus. [56] See Maybin, supra note1 at para57; R vLeroux, 2018 BCSC1429 atpara44 [Leroux]. She explained: As I discussed inCribbin, while different terminology has been used to explain the applicable standard in Canada, Australia and England, whether the terminology used is beyondde minimis, significant contribution or substantial cause, the standard of causation which this terminology seeks to articulate, within the context of causation in homicide, is essentially the same. [15] On fair labelling, see AJ Ashworth, The Elasticity of Mens Rea in CFH Tapper, ed, Crime, Proof and Punishment: Essays in Memory of Sir Rupert Cross (London, UK: Butterworths & Co, 1981) 45 at5356. [74] See Stuart, Confusing Cause, supra note71 at23031. The question of causation in criminal law provides an instructive example of judges' use of unexpressed policy reasoning and the challenges that this poses for the teaching and learning of legal Automatism is a legal defence to a broad range of . Contrary to the Courts invocation of the importance of moral innocence, this article demonstrates that causation principles actually tend to concede the accuseds moral fault while still providing reasons for withholding blame for a given consequence. However, if the plaintiff expressly consented to such an act or gave implied consent by participating in a particular event or situation (e.g., playing sports with the defendant), they are not liable. Your choice to prosecute the accused or to defend them will determine where you work. R vReid, 2003 NSCA104. [66] See Anne-Marie Boisvert, La responsabilit versant acteurs: vers une redcouverte, en droit canadien, de la notion dimputabilit(2003) 33:2 RGD271 at288. [40] Notably, legal causation remains intact where the victim refuses life-saving treatment, for either religious or other reasons. Like in ordinary life, the criminal law recognizes that defendants exert meaningful control over their own conduct and its potential risks. It is one of the elements that must be proved before an accused can be convicted of a crime in which the effect of the act is part of the definition of the crime (e.g. cause | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute This reveals that causations underlying rationale is more closely related to concerns about fair attribution rather than moral innocence. Third, the importance of predictability and uniformity in the criminal law supports the adoption of one single formulation for factual causation. It is the act or process that produces an effect. How burden of proof differs. legal cause | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute In legal terms, causation refers to the relationship of cause and effect between one event or action and the result. One way of addressing that shortfall is by thinking about factual causation in terms of ascriptionthe practice of attributing changes that take place in the world to particular individuals. This article aims to advance a more cogent and clear conception of the causation requirement in Canadian criminal law. [170] See Reference Re BC Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 SCR486 at492, 24 DLR (4th)536. [91] Ernest J Weinrib, A Step Forward in Factual Causation (1975) 38:5 Mod L Rev518 at522. Where causation is a significant issue, most cases turn on the fact that the victim suffered greater harm because of an intervening act than they would have experienced without its occurrence. [182] See James Edwards & Andrew Simester, Crime, Blameworthiness, and Outcomes (2019) 39:1 Oxford J Leg Stud50 at71. [68] See ibid. [35] See ibid at para72. [15] Ultimately, this article explains why, like other legal doctrines, causation touches on one of the most crucial issues in the criminal law: Who is responsible for what? The School of Law at SMU was founded in 1925. criminal law | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute This is a criminal act that constitutes the conduct prohibited by the statute. [172] Individuals must at least have the capacity to appreciate the risks inherent to their conduct to satisfy the objective standard of fault. In Maybin, the Supreme Court of Canada observed that the analytical tool of reasonably foreseeable intervening acts closely aligns with the mens rea for manslaughter. An act may be any kind of voluntary human behaviour. Movements made in an epileptic seizure are not acts, nor are movements made by a somnambulist before awakening . Sanford Kadish remarks that criminal law differentiates between blame for complete versus incomplete acts and materialized versus unmaterialized harms;[181] for inchoate offences, fair labelling recognizes the ascriptive connection between a persons act and the completeness of that act or outcome.[182]. As the Model Penal Code states, " [c]onduct is the cause of a result when Causation A principle used in the assessment of damages for breach of contract or tort. [90], Ernest Weinrib explains that the but-for test is a speculative process that considers what did not happen or rather what would have happened if what had happened had not happened.[91] As is the case in tort law jurisprudence, certain scenarios render the but-for test futile. Legal causation excludes ascribing certain results to the accused where their culpable and wrongful acts are simply a condition but not an instrumental and salient legal cause of the victims death. [44] See ibid at paras3044; Jonathan Herring, Criminal Law: Text, Cases, and Materials, 6thed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014) at12426, citing Klimchuk, Thin Skulls, supra note30 at12935. It then argues that the doctrine of reasonable foreseeability is distinct from the question of foreseeability of bodily harm when assessing moral fault. [81] Lenity aims to protect individuals against disproportionate attributions of blame, stigma, or punishment in light of the defendants actual culpability. [181] See Kadish, Complicity, Cause and Blame, supra note38 at356. [66] She points out that the beyond de minimis test not only requires little contribution from the accused to meet that threshold, but dismisses an array (or combination) of relevant contributing circumstances as irrelevant. R vHallett (1969), SASR141 (SA Sup Ct) [Hallett]. [148] See Criminal Code, supra note39, s215; George P Fletcher, On the Moral Irrelevance of Bodily Movements (1994) 142:5 U Pa L Rev1443 at1448 [Fletcher, Moral Irrelevance]. PDF CAUSATION AND DAMAGES - Sommerman, McCaffity, Quesada & Geisler L.L.P. The doctrine of reasonably foreseeable intervening acts, however, plays a role that is distinct from foreseeability with respect to mens rea. PDF Legal causation* - MIT - Massachusetts Institute of Technology Causation ensures that the accused is not blamed for causing the victims death despite the fact that their act could have led to the same result. Rethinking Actual Causation in Tort Law - Harvard Law Review Rather, it also encompasses the origin of certain risks and the kind of risks that reasonably flow from ones conduct in a given circumstance. As previously mentioned, various definitions and approaches of causation are present in the literature. [167] Legal causation therefore acts as a moral constraint that legitimates blaming practices in the criminal law. The Supreme Court of Canada unanimously endorsed that statement in Maybin, observing that [a]ny assessment of legal causation should maintain focus on whether the accused should be held legally responsible for the consequences of his actions, or whether holding the accused responsible for the death would amount to punishing a moral innocent.[160] The argument that legal causation is necessarily justified by the need to prevent the conviction of morally innocent persons, however, is problematic for several reasons. 1. This article adopts that position. [81] See Glanville Williams, Criminal Law: The General Part, 2nd ed (London, UK: Stevens & Sons, 1961) at58889. [14] This Part shows why legal causation can concede the moral culpability of individuals who significantly contribute to the victims death, yet withhold blame due to concerns that are rooted in principles of ascription and fair labellingrationales that are distinct from moral innocence. As was the case in Maybin, barfights do create that added risk. [19] If the first step is satisfied, the second step examines legal causationwhether the accused is morally responsible for the victims death. [4] Third parties may apply some form of negligent care that also contributes to the victims death. That this is so is not of course to say that it should be so. Shanks. Cet article aborde ces limites et propose une alternative plausible pour expliquer la causalit et sa justification sous-jacente. Building on Jeremy Butts recent scholarship, Part II argues that judges should use a uniform formulation of the factual causation standard: significant contributing cause. Doctrine of Causation - Law Times Journal [166] The original quote by Antony Duff is He is not innocent, but he is not that guilty; he is not punished for the offence which he committed (RA Duff, Trials and Punishments (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991) at155). There are a lot of criminal offences for which causation is not relevant because the conduct amounts to a criminal offence without any requirement that it brought about a particular result. Despite the presence of both actus reus and mens rea, a criminal act can be unsustainable in the eyes of law because of the absence/lack of . It draws a boundary between moral fault and attribution of results to individuals.[168]. [154] Legal causation serves to ascribe prima facie moral responsibility in the form of a connection between the actors conduct and negative changes, to the exclusion of other persons. [176] Causation in the (Criminal) Law, supra note142 at424. Airbnb Hit With Wrongful Death Lawsuit Over Guest's Death at - Law.com [36] In contexts where the defendant contributes significantly to the victims death and there is no intervening act or event, legal causation is relatively simple. [Last updated in June of 2020 by the Wex Definitions Team]. These legal considerations, in turn, reflect fundamental principles of criminal justice such as the principle that the morally innocent should not be punished.[159]. The Supreme Court of Canada accepts that judges possess discretion with respect to the formulation of the factual causation standard. Insofar as the answer to that question is more rooted in a commitment to experience rather than logic, it may be time to seriously reconsider our approach to causation in the criminal law altogether. His act need not be the sole cause, but must make a significant and not trivial (de minimis non curat lex) contribution to the result. [76] If convicted of those offences, defendants can be sentenced to life imprisonment. [17] Don Stuart, Canadian Criminal Law, 7th ed (Toronto: Carswell, 2014) at142. [21] Cause in fact is a necessary precondition that ties the accuseds conduct to the consequence. Hillel David, W Paul McCague & Peter F Yaniszewski, Proving Causation Where the But For Test is Unworkable (2005) 30:2 Adv Q216 at223. Causation in criminal liability - e-lawresources.co.uk For example, in Dupre & Son Floor Covering, Inc. v. City of Iota, the court found the police officers failure to impound a pickup truck after its driver failed to provide proof of insurance, was not thelegalcauseof a motor vehicle accident where the pickup truck driver crossed centerline of a highway and struck another vehicle. Legal causation requires that the harm must result from a culpable act: 2. Building on Andrew Simesters work, this Part provides an account of causation that is rooted primarily in the notions of attribution and fair labelling, as opposed to moral innocence. The victim dies immediately. [94] See Weinrib, supra note91 at52122. The concept of causation is central to myriad areas of tort law: a defendant commits simple battery only if she "intentionally causes bodily contact" with another; 1 she trespasses only if she "intentionally enters or causes tangible entry upon the land in possession of another"; 2 she is liable for negligence only if she "causes personal injury or property damage" to another. Another difference between criminal and civil law in Texas lies in the burden of proof for the prosecutors. [36] See Maybin, supra note1 at para16; Eric Colvin, Causation in Criminal Law (1989) 1:2 Bond L Rev253 at254. The doctrine of reasonably foreseeable intervening acts plays a more prominent role in assessing legal causation within Canadian criminal law. [50], The second analytical tool assesses whether the intervening act was independent of the accuseds conduct and deemed to be the sole legal cause of the victims death (independent intervening acts). [113] She consumed the pills and died of a drug overdose. [169] In Reference Re B.C. [183] Thus, while factual causation ties changes in the world to individuals, legal causation ascribes scopes of risk to those individuals. [171] Capacity-based concerns underlie the requisite degree of fault for objective mens rea. 2) Legal causation: the defendant's act must be an operative and substantial cause of the consequence. [147] See Honor, supra note146 at5051. R v Harvey, 2016 BCCA 149 at para20. [47] For a similar decision, see R vHart, [1986] 2 NZLR408 (CA). This Part demonstrates why the significant contributing cause test helps ensure a strong ascriptive link between the defendants conduct and its role in worsening others plights. [33] Ibid at para71. [32] The majority of the Court also reformulated the terminology for factual causation, holding that the accuseds conduct must be a significant contributing cause of the victims injury or death. [65] David M Tanovich & James Lockyer, Revisiting Harbottle: Does the Substantial Cause Test Apply to All Murder Offences? (1996) 38:3 Crim LQ322 at332. [135] The term ambit of risk does not merely allude to the reasonable foreseeability of the intensity of certain risks or the possibility of some result materializing. 4.3 Causation and Harm | Criminal Law - Lumen Learning [29] See HLA Hart & Tony Honor, Causation in the Law, 2nd ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985) at17273 (the authors use the alternate term eggshell skull). The trial judge still convicted the accused of manslaughter, concluding that he contributed to the victims death beyond the de minimis range. . This doesn't include the number of civil cases still in . [143] Having set out that account, it then challenges the Supreme Court of Canadas rationale for causation as necessary to prevent the conviction of morally innocent persons. In a personal injury case, you must establish causationmeaning that it's not enough to show that the defendant was negligent. [51] See Maybin, supra note1 at para27, citing R v Pagett, [1983] EWCA Crim1 [Pagett]. When the intervening act was unchosen, unforeseeable, and outside the scope of risks that flow from the accuseds conduct, it is difficult to justify punishing them for causing the victims death on the basis of desert or deterrence principles. The de minimis threshold is set so low that there is no need to stipulate the requirement of a direct causal relationship between the unlawful act and the proscribed harm. [97] In a similar vein, Butt points out that courts convict defendants where they contribute significantly to the victims death despite not being the but-for cause of that result. [16] See David Ormerod & Karl Laird, eds, Smith, Hogan, and Ormerods Criminal Law, 15th ed (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018) at29. Stanley Yeo posits that a not insignificant contribution does not equate to a significant contribution. [148] Scholars such as George Fletcher, Arthur Leavens, and John Kleinig argue that factual causation is grounded in the existence of some pre-existing duty that creates a form of reliance between the defendant and the victim, making the accused responsible in fact for the victims plight. [43] The first analytical tool assesses whether the general nature of the intervening act and its accompanying risk of harm were reasonably foreseeable at the time of the accuseds initial conduct (reasonably foreseeable intervening acts). [100] Justice Hill Jr. declared that the defendant could not exculpate himself on the basis of the victims contributory negligence,[101] observing that factual causation could be satisfied even though the defendant did not physically collide with the deceaseds vehicle. Despite these valuable contributions, there are certain limitations to the way causation is currently conceptualized in Canadian criminal law. Comparable concerns animate blaming practices for inchoate offences, where the accused does not successfully commit the crime or produce certain harms, as is the case for attempts and conspiracy. Thus, where in a civil case two parties dispute their rights, a criminal prosecution involves the government deciding whether to punish an individual for either an act or an omission. [105] In these types of cases, courts evaluate the accuseds factual involvement in bringing about a consequence by looking at its intensitywhether the contribution is so significant that it cannot logically be divorced from the consequence. The thin skull principle was entrenched in the common law and recognized by scholars such as Hale and Stephen: see Sir Matthew Hale, Historia Placitorum Coronae: The History of the Pleas of the Crown (London, UK: Nutt & Gosling, 1736) vol 1 at428; Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England (London, UK: MacMillan & Co, 1883) vol 3 at57.