CRIMINAL LAW

Application of principles of causation to stated sets of facts

Consider the following sets of facts:

(1) X, wishing to kill Y, shoots at her, but misses. In an attempt to escape X, Y runs into a building. However, shortly before she runs into the building, Z, who has nothing to do with X, has planted a bomb inside the building because she bears a grudge against the owner of the building. The bomb explodes, killing Y. Is X's act the cause of Y's death? (Shouldn't Z's act rather be regarded as the cause?)

X's shooting at Y was surely the factual cause of Y's death, because if one applies the conditio sine qua non theory, it is clear that if X did not shoot at Y, Y would not have run into the building where the bomb exploded.

The next step is to ascertain whether X's act was also the legal cause of Y's death. A court would in all probability decide this question in the negative. The proximate or decisive cause of death was not X's shooting, but the explosion of the bomb planted by Z. It is also doubtful whether X's act can be described as the legal cause of Y's death in terms of the theory of adequate causation, because in the normal course of events, running into a building for safety would not result in being blown up by a bomb.

The bomb explosion was an unexpected and unusual event and could therefore also be regarded as a novus actus interveniens. Accordingly, X's act would most likely not be regarded as the legal cause of Y's death. X could then at most be convicted of attempted murder.

(2) X assaults Y and breaks her arm. Z, who has witnessed the assault, decides to help Y by taking her to hospital for treatment. She helps Y get onto the back of her truck and drives off. However, Z drives recklessly, and Y becomes so afraid that Z may have an accident that she jumps off the back of the moving truck. In jumping off the truck, she bumps her head against a large stone, as a result of which she dies. Who has caused Y's death X, Z or perhaps Y through her own conduct?

X's act was also a factual cause of Y's death. A court would most likely hold that Z's reckless driving deviated from the conduct normally expected of a driver, and that it constituted a novus actus, so that X's assault would not be regarded as the legal cause of Y's death