Actual & Proximate Cause

Question 1

But For Causation - Cause in fact

Answer 1

The result would not have happened but for the defendant’s conduct

Question 2

Substantial factors causation - cause in fact

Answer 2

a. two or more defendants, who are not acting in concert, commit two separate acts, each of which are sufficient to cause the result
b. requires that the acts are both independent and concurrent

Question 3

Acceleration theory - cause in fact

Answer 3

a. a defendant who accelerates the death of another is the cause-in-fact of the death (Oxendine)
b. A defendant who causes the death of another is not relived of responsibility for causing the death if another later injury accelerates, that is, hastens the death of the other person. Contribution without acceleration is not sufficient.

Question 4

Medical Causation - cause in fact

Answer 4

A finding of medical causation may not be based on speculation or conjecture (Oxendine)

Question 5

Proximate Cause

Answer 5

No proximate cause when
1. prohibited result of the defendant’s conduct is beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct
2. It would be unjust based on fairness and policy considerations to hold the defendant criminally responsible. (Valazquez)

Question 6

intervening cause

Answer 6

Can only be held criminally responsible if
a. cause was foreseeable based on an objective standard of reasonableness

Question 7

Typical intervening acts

Answer 7

1. “An act of God” or an event that cannot be traced back to any human intermediary
2. An act of an independent third party
3. An act or omission of the victim that “breaks the causal chain”

Question 8

Dressler’s Proximate Cause Analysis (People v Rideout)

Answer 8

1. Foreseeability of intervening cause
   a. responsive/dependent intervening cause
   i. harm resulting from actions taken in response to defendant’s actions
   ii. If found, will establish proximate cause
   b. coincidental cause
   i. where defendant’s actions put victim “in the wrong place at the wrong time”
   ii. only establish PC if that coincidence was foreseeable
2. De minimus contributions to social harm (intervening supersedes)
   a. if contribution of the defendant was only a small portion of the actual cause, the law will generally ignore this cause in favor of the more substantial cause
3. Apparent safety (intervening supersedes)
   a. when defendant’s active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer.
   b. if found, will foreclose proximate cause
4. Free, deliberate, informed human (intervening supersedes)
   a. of third party may foreclose proximate cause
5. intended consequences
   a. proximate caused established if defended has intended the consequences of his actions
6. Intervening cause is an omission
   a. generally not used, the law will generally not accept negative act to override a positive act

Question 9

MPC 2.03 proximate cause

Answer 9

When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, [proximate] is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor, unless,
1. It is the same kind of injury but a different victim or property
2. It is the same kind of injury and neither too remote nor accidental

When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the actor is aware (recklessness) or should be aware (negligence) unless,
1. It is the same kind of injury but a different victim or property
2. It is the same kind of injury and neither too remote nor accidental