Causation

Question 1

Cause in Fact (CL)

Answer 1

But For: The harm would not have occurred but for the conduct.
Acceleration: If you accelerate someone’s death, that satisfies but for causation.
- Aggravation without acceleration does not count Oxendine
Substantial Factor: There are multiple independent causes that are each sufficient to cause the result

Question 2

Cause in Fact (MPC)

Answer 2

MPC: 203(1)
Conduct Is the cause of a result when:
(a) But for the conduct the result would not have occurred (acceleration counts)
(b) The relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements.

MPC = but for (acceleration counts), and substantial factor.

Question 3

Proximate Cause (MPC + CL)

Answer 3

Concurrence of the Elements: Mens Rea and Actus Rea must occur at the same time – Rose (hit walker without negligence and kept going negligently – if he died instantly = no liability)

Question 4

Proximate Cause (CL)

Answer 4

Proximate: we analyze guideposts to determine whether harm was reasonably foreseeable.

1. Omission: never break the chain.
2. Intended consequences doctrine: If the consequences occur in the general manner and as generally intended, unlikely to break the chain, the more variance, the more likely.
3. De Minimis Contribution: A minor acceleration will not break the chain.
4. Voluntary Human Intervention: Free + Deliberate choices by victim with full knowledge make it more likely to break the chain.
5. Apparent Safety: Usually breaks the chain if reaches safety. Rideout (walked back into road)

Question 5

Proximate Cause 2 (CL)

Answer 5

Foreseeability:

Responsive: (acting in response to the defendant’s behavior) normally maintains the chain unless abnormal/unforeseeable

Coincidental: (Defendant’s acts merely put the victim in the wrong place at the wrong time, which allowed the intervening cause to act upon him) goes to the doctor and is attacked by a tweaker – normally breaks the chain unless foreseeable.

Note: criminal intervention and gross medical negligence normally breaks the chain, but regular negligence does not. (err on it being normal negligence)

Question 6

Proximate Cause (MPC)

Answer 6

2.03(2): When purposely or knowingly causing the result is an element, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or contemplation of the actor unless:

1. The only difference is the person/property harmed.
2. The only difference is the actual harm is less serious than expected. (or)
3. The harm is of the same type and not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense. (This exception is interpreted broadly)

Question 7

Proximate Cause 2 (MPC)

Answer 7

2.03(3): When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, no causation if result is not within the risk, you’re aware of/should have been aware of unless:

1. The only difference is the person/property harmed.
2. The only difference is the actual harm is less serious than expected. (or)
3. The harm is of the same type and not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense. (This exception is interpreted broadly)