Causality Is a Legal Term

Causality is a legal term that describes the relationship between an event or cause and a second or additional event, the effect. This assumes that the second event is the consequence of the first (Lippman, p. 133). Cause in fact indicates that if X had not acted (the assault), Z would never have been taken to the hospital with an injury. X set the events in motion, which them spiralted out of control. In addition, X wanted more revenge, so mixed poison for Z, unbeknownst to the doctor or to Z. Therefore, X is guilty of two causes: the assault and the poisioning. Since X died of the poison, it is now a capital crime -- murder. Causation needs an actus reus -- a specific action from which all other events flow. In this case, X is the causation of all the events.

Part 2 -- Assumption a -- X is still guilty of the cause of Z's death. First, if X had not assulted Z, Z would not be in the hospital. If Z. were not in the hospital, Z would not need medication. There is no indication from the doctor that the medicine would have caused Z's death because two doses were taken. Instead, X put poison into the medicine, which is altering a controlled substance with illegal intent. Z did not voluntarily kill themselves, Z thought they were alleviating pain, caused by X.

Part 3 -- Assumption B -- There are two causalities in this scenario. First, X is still guilty of Z's death, because X put Z. In a position of harm by the nurse. The pathological nurse is guilty of Z's death because of intent to kill with an injection. The cause in fact indicates that Z. would never have come across the nurse without X's action. It was not coindental that Z. was in the hosptial, but a purposeful act. At the least, Z is an accessory to murder, and in fact, also committed a crime by altering the medication. Since in any case Z. would be dead, X's initial cause is the seminal event.

Part 2 -- a -- the law takes into account intention, which relates to conduct (intentional or deliberate) or unplanned. In on case, a person's planned conduct may caused an unintended outcome, and an unplanned event can do the same. However, in law, individuals may be liable for deliberate conduct regardless of the actual oucome. Attempting a crime is deliberate. Negligence is a breach of standard conduct, or that a person did not take reasonable care about an action. Negligence is conduct based, though, because it can be applied regardless of the mental state (intention or not). Recklessness does have a mental element, and is a breach of conduct -- deliberate and aware. Reckless conduct is then deliverate because the person is assumed to have required knowledge that an adverse action might occur (Lippman, p. 125).

Part 2- B -- X suffers seizeures but cannot afford the medicine to mitigate the condition. The doctor warned X not to drive, but X continues to do so. X is reckless because X's actions are purposeful in creating a risk -- to themselves and to others. X knows they suffer from seizures, and knows that they are living on a day-to-day time bomb because the seizures happen, on average, every other week. There is no way for X to predict the seizures, so driving anytime is reckless.

Part 2 -- B2 -- in this case, X never sought medical attention for seizures, believing them to be simply due to a lack of sleep. X continues to drive and has an accident. Following the accident, a test shows that the seizures are caused from a medical condition. In this case, X is negligent because they were unaware of the medical condition and had not been warned to drive. X knew, though, that something was wrong and should have sought treatment, but based on income levels was not aware of the seriousness of the risky behavior.

Part 2- C- X knows they suffer from seizures, has been warned by a doctor that they should not drive, yet contues to drive and causes an accident in which pedestrians are killed. While X did not willfully set out to kill these pedestrians, they were reckless because they were aware of and disregarding medical and personal knowledge that they had a condition that could cause harm to others. A reasonable person would have not driven, not put the events into place (causality) that caused the death of the pedestrians. The model penal code asks "whether the result was consistent with the defendants…. Knowledge or scope of risk by the defendant's reckless or negligent act" (Lippman, p. 136). In this case, the legal answer is yes, driving was within both knowledge and cogent scope of risk for X.

Part 3 -- a status offense is one in which motive is not consideration in guilt. There was clearly no motive in the Sick Aunt dying, and there was no contract that X had to take care of the aunt gratis. There is also no proof that X's actions caused Y to die, there were other options of getting Y to the hospital, and/or the death was not precluded. Status offense is usually focused on juvenelies or others who are not knowingly guildy, but are different depending on state criminal codes. X performed the duty agreed for as long as possible, but never indicated legally that they would care 24/7.