Was it the cause-in-fact? (but for test; objective)
*Concurring causes are both cause-in-facts*
NO YES
-NOT cause Was it Prox. cause? (must be forseeable)
NO
YES Not cause
Was there an intervening
human actor?
NO – Then defendant is
YES legal cause.
Was IHA’s mr higher, equal, or less than defendant?
Higher mr-Equal mr Lower mr
Breaks causal chain -Cases are split -Does NOT breack causal chain
Def. NOT LEGAL CAUSE on if it breaks chain -Defendant is legal cause
Unless: I is insane, I acting
under duty/duress, I acting
b/c of emergency created by
defendenant. Then IHA can’t break chain
*Exceptions*
1) Stephenson rule: If defendant caused mental irresponsibility through UNLAWFUL
act; suicide resulted; then DEFENDANT IS CAUSE of death.
2) Coincidental intervening cause breaks chain. Defendant is not legal cause of death.
3) Responsive intervening act: Defendant is still responsible for a foreseeable resulting
act, like medical care, except when medical care is GROSSLY negligent or reckless. This
would supercede defendant’s casual responsibility.
4) Apparent Safety Doctrine: If victim is put into position by defendant where death
could result but has a route to safety and does not take it, then defendant not cause.
5) Omissions normally cannot supercede defendants responsibility
6) When mr’s re the same cases can go either way. Mutual risk creation (Mcfadden,
Atencio) vs, Volition of the deceased. Court’s weigh them and decide.
Legal Cause of Death?
