Talk:Causation (law)

Untitled

causation in common sense

Should proximate cause be merged with this? Or at least more explicitly linked? Amcfreely 19:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Big changes

As you can see I've made very large changes to the previous version of this page, which was substantially defective, mainly in the introduction of basic concepts. Here is my explanation for my revisions.

(1) Causation is 'not' the test for determining a defendant’s liability. Causation can be (but need not be) an element in a test for liability. The statement is misleading, suggesting that all the legal system requires is a causal nexus between plaintiff and defendant to generate liability. Causation is but one many elements to a cause of action. For example in murder, there is (1) an act; (2) causing death; (3) with the relevant mental state. To simply claim that cause alone determines liability across the board is flatly wrong.

(2) I have added a section outlining how factual and legal causes are determined in law - a startling omission.

(3) The key principle – novus actus interveniens is not the key principle in causation. Quite the opposite. Once causation of the defendant is established, novus actus interveniens is used as a defence, to suggest that an act subsequent to that of the defendant ‘broke the chain of causation’. It is a subsequent inquiry, not something that determines a cause from the beginning.

(4) ‘Proximate cause’ – yes, this is difficult. As I understand it, English common law has a two step inquiry, where the US system has one – ‘what is the proximate cause?’ – a bit of a mish-mash of a factual causal inquiry and policy considerations. I've included the previous discussion substantially unaltered under a new heading.

(5) Case summaries – they seem okay and I haven’t moved them.

I hate these two sentences. They are completely incorrect.

"On still other occasions, causation is irrelevant to legal liability altogether. For example, under a contract of indemnity insurance, the insurer agrees to indemnify the victim for harm not caused by the insurer, but by other parties."

I am an insurance coverage attorney. The carrier does not agree to indemnify the 'victim.' The carrier is indemnfying its insured. If the insured is found liable a monetary judgment will be entered against him, not the carrier. Pursuant to contract, the insurer then indemnifies its insured. I know it's picky, but the distinction is critical to a proper understanding of causation. The insurer is not liable to the victim despite a causal connection, as the sentence suggests, but rather, is contractually obligated to indemnify the person who did cause harm to the 'victim' (I so prefer plaintiff or claimant).

I propose deleting the insurance hypothetical althogehter.

Just English law?

I was just reading this and found a few American references. I'm just wondering if this article is primarily for English (UK) law or is it American? Shamess 14:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Where are the citations to Stapleton and Green? I know Stapleton has written extensively on the area, albeit that the "NESS" stuff is wholly inconvincing. Something to John Mackie, The Cement of the Universe, or David Lewis on Counterfactuals is far more important than the Wright/Stapleton stuff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.248.133 (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

Same systems of law and they are similar enough... Foofighter20x (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

On the presumption that both pages will expand and each country needs its own treatment, I'm taking the merger tag down. We need country specific pages and this as a comparative page. Wikidea 00:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather opaque, what a mess

This rather opaque and difficult-to-follow article reminds me of one of the major problems with English law, which is that it failed to follow American law into the Plain English movement of the 1970s. Most well-trained American practitioners today are drilled ruthlessly in law school in the principles of clear legal writing developed by famous scholars such as David Mellinkoff and Bryan Garner, and this is reflected in the clear style seen in the latest decisions from famous appellate courts like the Supreme Court of California and the Supreme Court of the United States. It also helps that the U.S. has had many gifted, brilliant writers for judges like Roger Traynor and Benjamin Cardozo.

Of course, it's true that causation by definition is an extremely abstract and difficult-to-explain concept, but wandering in and out of very abstract hypotheticals (which should be generally avoided in articles targeted for laypeople) doesn't help. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Blah. Read some Lord Denning judgments. Wikidea 00:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have. A few were good, most were not. I always thought Denning was overrated. --Coolcaesar (talk) 02:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Tort Law Series

I tried to improve this on Legal Causation, but I am dismayed finding this subject categorized only under Criminal Law whereas most of the concepts are well known and better related to the Tort Law series. At least they should be joined, or a new section added to the Tort Law series, on causation. ````anonymous

Probable Copyright violations in this text

See Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 June 4 -- PBS (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)