Scribd
Upload
647 views2 pages

Causation Flow Chart

This document provides definitions and examples to distinguish between different types of causation in criminal cases: - Proximate cause refers to the final conclusion that the accused's actions directly caused the harm. - Remote cause means the accused's actions were too indirectly linked to be criminally liable. - Actual cause establishes that the accused's conduct was somehow linked in the causal chain. - Direct actual causes mean the accused's sole act directly caused the harm in a continuous manner. - Indirect actual causes mean the accused set in motion a chain of events, but another intervening force directly caused the harm. - Dependent intervening causes means the intervening force was a response to the accused's actions.

Uploaded by

Justin Ware
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
647 views2 pages

Causation Flow Chart

This document provides definitions and examples to distinguish between different types of causation in criminal cases: - Proximate cause refers to the final conclusion that the accused's actions directly caused the harm. - Remote cause means the accused's actions were too indirectly linked to be criminally liable. - Actual cause establishes that the accused's conduct was somehow linked in the causal chain. - Direct actual causes mean the accused's sole act directly caused the harm in a continuous manner. - Indirect actual causes mean the accused set in motion a chain of events, but another intervening force directly caused the harm. - Dependent intervening causes means the intervening force was a response to the accused's actions.

Uploaded by

Justin Ware
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Causation Flow Chart

Proximate Cause- This is the end conclusion. Remember that if you term the accused on
the test as the proximate cause then he will be guilty of the act. This term is limited and
should be used at the end of your analyzes. It should be used similar to the way courts give
a guilty verdict.
Remote Cause- ONLY use this term when the analyzes concludes that the accused is not
guilty and criminal liability should not be imputed...because the acts were so remote to the
cause, he is not criminally liable.
Actual Cause- This term is designed to just make sure that the act of the accused was in
fact a link in the chain somewhere.....on the exam use that phrase- the act of the accused
was a cause in fact...this term is used when the conduct is actually the cause in fact and that
the accused was a substantial factor in bringing about the results.
EXAMPLE-1) X shoots at V with the intent to kill, but misses. Y also shoots at V and actually hit
him. V dies. Despite the coincidence of X intent, his act of shooting Y is still the actual cause, because
he killed v.
EXAMPLE -2) Bill and Ben inflict a fatal wound on Don. Although Don may have died from each
wound, it is
enough that each wound was A SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR that played a part in his death. Therefore, Bill
and Ben were the actual cause for Dons death.
EXAMPLE 3)- Carol is dying of a fatal disease. But just prior to the time that Carol was about to
die. Adam came by and gave her a poison to finish her off so she would not suffer. Because he finished
her off he is still considered the Actual Cause, because he HASTEND her death.

Once the ACTUAL cause has been established....you must then determine whether
that cause was a PROXIMATE OR REMOTE CAUSE, in order to do that you must distinguish
between the two types of actual causes, those that are direct and those which are indirect.
Direct ACTUAL CAUSES- this term indicates that the act of the accused act need not be
immediate and that it not be inevitable. It is enough if the act of the accused caused the
particular harm to result...when, where and in the manner it did. remember the DOMINO
effect, if nothing but the accuseds sole act caused the result, then we have the DIRECT
ACTUAL CAUSE(THE DOMINO EFFECT)
Example- Will stabs Jim and Jim bleeds to death. Jim is the direct actual cause of Wills death,
even though it may have taken hours for v to die, and even though timely medical attention might
intervened to save V's life.

Indirect ACTUAL CAUSE- this term indicates that, although the act of the accused set in
motion a certain chain of events the particular harm done was the result of still another
force which happened to intervene.
Go back to the domino effect ....suppose the dominos are all lined up....Jim is intending to
push the dominos over the domino's.... but before he does, he decides blows up a balloon...
but the balloon pops....a cat that's in the alley is startled and knocks over the first domino.
Jim having lined all the dominos up, establishes that Jim set in the motion needed for the
domino's to be knocked over....but since the cat started the domino effect....JIM will be
considered a INDIRECT ACTUAL CAUSE and the cat will be considered intervening forces
which contributed significantly. However this is not conclusive to imputability.
Dependent Intervening Cause-this term indicates that the intervening force was
responsive to the act of the accused. It probably would not have happened BUT FOR the
accused's intentional or negligent conduct.
EXAMPLE- Dan shoots into the river, just in front of a boat in which he sees Kim and Martha
riding. Kim becomes excited and jumps out of the boat and turns it over causing Martha to drown. In
this case Dan is an Actual Cause since his act SUBSTANTIALLY contributed to the resulting harm. But
because DANS act itself would not cause anyone to die, Dan CANNOT BE CONSIDERED a direct actual

cause. DAN IS a DEPENDENT INTERVENING CAUSE since KIM jumping out of the boat was in response
to DANS act of shooting.

Independent Intervening Cause- this term indicates that the intervening force was
coincidental to the act of the accused. Whatever the accused did merely put the victim at a
particular place at a particular time, making it possible that some other person or non
human agency could act upon the victim to cause harm.
EXAMPLE- X threatens to shoot Y if he doesn't get out of a house. Y leaves the house and is
struck and killed by lighting.
In this case X is an actual cause since his act substantially contributed to the resulting harm. But
because X's act itself would not have caused anyone to die, X cannot be considered a direct cause. X
is then and INDIRECT ACTUAL CAUSE. But unlike the Prior example the intervening force was not
responsive in any way to X's act. It was merely a coincidental act of God and there for is considered
and independent intervening cause.

You might also like