Key Takeaways

  • Causation in criminal law involves both factual ("but for") and legal ("proximate") causation.
  • Courts distinguish between direct and intervening causes when determining liability.
  • Proximate cause helps limit liability to consequences closely related to the defendant’s act.
  • Intervening acts, foreseeability, and medical negligence are common areas of causation complexity.
  • Multiple cause scenarios and omissions also raise unique challenges in establishing causation.

Causation Problems and Considerations in the Criminal Law

Causation - Problems & Considerations

In most conventional criminal law cases, causation is a straightforward matter. Someone commits a criminal action, which is the cause of a crime. However, causation problems can occur whenever criminal liability requires a specific outcome. When the required outcome - such as the burning of a house or the death of a victim - appears to be caused not only by the defendant's actions but also by one or several other factors, causation problems arise.

Causation problems can easily arise in cases of homicide, when not only the defendant's actions, but other factors as well contribute to the victim's death. Of course, the majority of homicide cases do not involve causation problems. If A's action inflicts a fatal injury on B, then A caused B's death and is criminally liable. However, if A briefly wraps his hands around B's throat as if to throttle him and B immediately suffers a heart attack, then a problem of causation may arise.

Did A cause B's death? Yes and no. The cause of B's death was actually a heart attack. A's prosecution will probably try to establish that "but for" A's action, B would not have died. But because B actually died of a heart attack, the prosecution will probably have to establish A's action as the "proximate cause" of B's death - the cause of the cause of death - forming a direct connection of liability. This indirect link of causation can cause all sorts of problems in criminal procedure, since it's fairly unclear what, exactly, A did do, besides inspire a heart attack, and what crime he should be charged with. The trial could boil down to a lengthy and difficult debate over A's intentions at the time, his knowledge of B's medical history, personal character and other relative abstracts - and the outcome could be anything from a felony murder conviction to the charges being dropped.

Omissions and Causation

Failing to act can also constitute causation in criminal law, but only when the defendant had a legal duty to act. This duty may arise from:

  • Statutory obligations (e.g., a parent’s duty to feed a child).
  • Contractual duties (e.g., a lifeguard on duty).
  • Special relationships (e.g., between spouses).
  • Voluntary assumption of care.

If the failure to act leads to a harmful outcome, and the defendant had a duty, they may be held criminally responsible.

Multiple Causes and Concurrent Liability

In many criminal cases, more than one cause contributes to a harmful outcome. Courts have held that when multiple actors contribute to a result, each may still be held liable if their individual actions were substantial and operative causes.

For example, if two people independently stab a victim, and either wound alone could have caused death, both may be found liable for homicide.

Medical Negligence and Causation

Medical treatment following an injury caused by a defendant can complicate causation. Generally, negligent medical care does not break the chain of causation unless it is so grossly negligent as to be entirely independent of the original act.

For instance, if a victim dies due to a routine surgical error after being injured by the defendant, the defendant remains liable. But if a doctor performs an unconnected, grossly negligent act, it may sever the causal link.

Foreseeability and Proximate Cause

Foreseeability plays a key role in determining proximate cause. A defendant is typically only held liable for harms that a reasonable person could have predicted as a likely result of their actions. This principle is especially important in cases involving long causal chains or unusual outcomes.

Courts often ask:

  • Was the type of harm foreseeable?
  • Was the manner in which it occurred too remote or extraordinary?

This helps ensure fairness by preventing individuals from being punished for results far beyond what their actions would reasonably cause.

Intervening Acts and the Chain of Causation

An intervening act (or novus actus interveniens) can break the chain of causation, relieving the defendant of liability if the act is independent and unforeseeable.

Examples include:

  • A third party’s deliberate action (e.g., a bystander giving harmful medical aid).
  • Natural events (e.g., an earthquake exacerbating a situation).
  • The victim’s own conduct, if grossly negligent or irrational.

However, if the intervening act is considered a foreseeable consequence of the defendant’s conduct, the chain remains intact.

Understanding Factual vs. Legal Causation

In criminal law, causation is divided into two critical components: factual causation and legal (or proximate) causation.

  • Factual causation asks whether the defendant’s conduct was the actual cause of the result. This is often tested using the "but for" rule — would the harm have occurred but for the defendant’s action?
  • Legal causation (proximate cause), on the other hand, limits liability by requiring that the harm must be a foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct. The law does not hold individuals accountable for every consequence of their actions, only those that are closely related in a chain of events.

Both types must be established to impose criminal liability.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is causation in criminal law? Causation in criminal law refers to the link between a defendant’s conduct and the criminal result. It must be both factual and legal (proximate) to establish liability.

2. What is the difference between factual and legal causation? Factual causation uses the "but for" test to establish if the defendant’s action was a necessary condition for the harm. Legal causation considers whether the harm was a foreseeable and direct result of the act.

3. Can medical negligence break the chain of causation? Only in extreme cases. Minor or typical medical errors generally do not sever the link between the original act and the result.

4. How do courts treat intervening acts? Intervening acts may break the chain of causation if they are independent and unforeseeable. If foreseeable, they usually do not affect the defendant’s liability.

5. Are omissions treated the same as actions in criminal law? Not exactly. Omissions only lead to liability if the defendant had a legal duty to act and failed to fulfill that duty.

If you need help with causation, you can post your legal need on UpCounsel's marketplace.. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.