8/8/2019 Chap6CauseExamples (1)

1/5

Illustrations of Factors Used to DetermineWhether an Intervening Cause Cuts Off Liability

1. De Minimus ContributionRule: A defendant will be relieved of liability for harm if his causalresponsibility is insubstantial in comparison to that of the interveningcause.

Illustration:00------------.-......-{)D wrongfully En route to hasp V is V diesinjures V nonfatally 1) struck by lightning or

2) shot by XOutcomes:1) D is relieved of liability for Vs death; but may still be liable for assault2) X is the proximate cause of Vs death; but D may still be liable for assault

2. Foreseeability - Responsive (Dependent) Intervening Cause. Something thatoccurs as a foreseeable reaction to D's conduct.

Rule: The response does not cut off liability unless it is so unusual itborders on bizarre.Illustration #1:0----------------------------------0---------------------------------{)D operates motor V, who is drunk, V drownsboat above speed tries to swim tolimit causing it to shorecapsize (conventionalwisdom: stay wi boat)Outcome: Vs conduct is a response not unexpected in light of his situation

caused by D's initial wrongdoing.D:lwp Ii lesIPalacioslCriminal LawF I OIChapter06causeexamples.docSeptember 16,2010 (4:13PM)I

8/8/2019 Chap6CauseExamples (1)

2/5

Illustration #2:()............................ (). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0D wounds V V, at hospital, is V diesnonfatally treated by MD whois negligent()utcome: MD's conduct is a response to a situation caused by D's initial

wrong bu t D's liability depends on the degree of negligence.()rdinary negligence does not break the choin of causation butgross negligence may.

3. Foreseeability -Coincidental (Independent) Intervening Cause. These areintervening causes that do not occur in response to D's initial wrongdoing.

Rule: Coincidental intervening cause relieves original wrongdoer ofcriminal responsibility unless i t is foreseeable.

Illustration #1:()................-..-.-...............().-------------------------0D robs V, a passenger X driving on the V diesin D's car, abandoning country road, strikes VVon country road duringbad weather()utcome: X's conduct is a coincidental intervening cause. D is not relieved

of liability for Vs death because i t is foreseeable that anotherwould drive along that road and strike V. who was standing in themiddle of it .

D:\wp flles\Palacios\Crim inalLawF 10\Chapter06causeexamples,docSeptember 16,2010 (4:13PM)2

8/8/2019 Chap6CauseExamples (1)

3/5

Illustration #2:()-----------------------------------()-----------------------------------0D wounds V non-fatally At hospital "knife-wielding V dies

maniac" attacks at random,stabbing V among others()utcome: The "maniac's" conduct is a coincidental intervening cause, but D

is relieved of liability for Vs death because i t is a bizarresituation.

4. Defendant's Mens Rea (Intended Consequences Doctrine)Rule: An intended consequence is generally not so remote as to cut offdefendant's criminal liability.

Illustration:()------------------------------()-------------------------()--------------------OD gives nurse N a N decides V doesn't X finds the V diespoison disguised as need it ; places "medication" later"medication" for V "medication" on table and administers

i t to V per label()utcome: Despite clearly unforeseeable intervening acts of N and X, D

cannot escape liability because he intended to cause Vs death

D:lwp fileslPalacioslCriminalLawFI 0lChapter06causeexamples.docSeptember 16,2010 (4: 13PM)3

8/8/2019 Chap6CauseExamples (1)

4/5

5. Dangerous Forces That Come to Rest (Apparent Safety Doctrine)Rule: When a "defendant's active force comes to rest in a position ofapparent safety, the court will follow it no longer."

Illustration:()-----------------------------------()-----------------------------------0D threatens Vs life V leaves and goes to her father's V dieshouse but doesn't go in b/c she fm exposuredoes not want to trouble him.

()utcome: D is not criminally liable for Vs death because she had anopportunity to exercise a choice that would have saved her lifebut did not do so.

6. Voluntary Human InterventionRule: D is more likely to be relieved of criminal liability where another'sintervention is "free, deliberate and informed".

Illustration #1:()------------------------------------()----------------------------------()D& V drag race V turns around at end & V diesspeeds toward starting linecrashing through guard rail

()utcome: Vs decision to continue speeding after the race was over cutsoff D's liability.

D:lwp fileslPalacioslCrimi nalLawF I 0lChapter06causeexamples.docSeptember 16,2010 (4: 13PM)4

8/8/2019 Chap6CauseExamples (1)

5/5

Illustration #2:()---------------------------------------------------------------------()D kidnaps and rapes V V, despondent,

commits suicide.()utcome: Action by V was not "free, deliberate and informed" so D is

criminally liable.7. Omission.

Rule: An omission by an intervening actor, even one who has anobligation to act, will not cut off liability of the initial actor. Thesecond actor may be liable as well, however.

Illustration:()-------------------------------------()----------------------------------------()D beats child V Vs parent fails to intervene V dies()utcome: D is still liable but parent may be liable as well.

D:\wp tiles\Palacios\CriminaILawF IOIChapter06causeexamples.docSeptember 16,2010 (4: 13PM)5