For causation between ∆’s act and the harm suffered:
∆ actions have to be both:
Actual cause + proximate cause = legal cause
Actual cause
(cause-in-fact)
3 tests
But For Test
If criminal result would not have occured but for ∆’s act or conduct, then ∆’s act is the actual cause of the criminal result
Substantial Factor Test
Acceleration Test
*this only applies to homicide
Proximate Cause
***The key is forseeability. If forseeable = proximate cause
What result if victim has pre-existing conditions or unknown special sensitivies?
∆’s conduct is a proximate cause of the harm
“You take the plaintiff as you find them”
What is an intervening cause?
An other force the combines with ∆’s act to bring about the harm
Superseding intervening cause
Relieves ∆’s of liability, thus braking the chain of proximate cause
When does an intervening cause not break chain of proximate cause
When it was foreseeable
Dependent intervening
cause will supersede the defendant’s act only when it is a totally abnormal response to the defendant’s act
Independent intervening cause
will normally supersede the defendant’s act, except when the independent intervening force was foreseeable