Ch. 4—Causation
Causation: ∆'s conduct must legally cause the prohibited result. Required for "result" crimes (e.g., homicide). Two layers: Actual Cause + Proximate Cause.
- Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact)
- But-for cause: but for ∆'s conduct, the result would not have occurred when and as it did.
- Twin Fires / Summers v. Tice Problem: if two independent acts each would have been sufficient, both are treated as actual causes (substantial-factor test).
- Legal/Proximate Cause
- Even if actual cause exists, no liability if a superseding intervening cause breaks the causal chain.
- Dependent intervening cause (responsive to ∆'s act, e.g., medical malpractice after wounding): does not break the chain.
- Independent intervening cause (free, deliberate, informed third-party act, or freak natural event): does break the chain.
- Test: was the intervening act foreseeable? If foreseeable, ∆ remains liable.
- Even if actual cause exists, no liability if a superseding intervening cause breaks the causal chain.
- MPC § 2.03: causation is satisfied if (1) conduct is an antecedent but-for cause and (2) the result is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on liability.
Cases here:
- Stephenson v. State, 179 N.E. 633 (Ind. 1932) — proximate cause; victim's suicide as foreseeable.
- People v. Acosta, 284 Cal. Rptr. 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) — high-speed chase; foreseeability of helicopter collision.
- State v. McGee — dependent vs. independent intervening cause.
Reading: pp. 159–63, 167–73, 186–88.