Discuss the extent to which the rules on causation need to be reformed

While at the hospital, surgery is performed; however, the victim dies on the operating table. It is later discovered the hospital staff gave the patient medication during the procedure in which the victim was allergic to, but was not the cause of death. The cause of death was determined to be the severed artery and loss of blood. Even though the injuries were life threatening and the victim died anyway, the defendant could argue the hospital staff was the proximate cause of the victim’s death by giving them the medication they are allergic to. This should not release the defendant from a murder charge since the victim died from injuries they sustained from the stabbing. With the artery being severed, there was no hope for the victim. The medication given to the patient, while negligent in the dose administration, did not cause the death of the

     One objection I have is in regards to Chisholm’s immanent causation. I do not agree that an agent is able to perform an action without anything motivating or causing him to do so. In the example above an agent causes brain activity which ultimately leads to his hand moving a wand. There has to be some underlying cause that led the man to grip and move

Several questions were raised by the defendant after his trial, which resulted in him filing an appeal of his conviction. Although he admitted to shooting Mr. Villella, Kusmider alleged that there was negligence upon the EMT’s for failing to properly restrain Mr. Villella while being transported to the hospital. During the trial, “a pathologist testified that Mr. Villella’s death was caused by the gunshot wound to his throat, however, the wound could have been survivable (Brody & Acker, 2010, p.116). The issue of proximate causation came about during Kusmider v. State (1984). Judge Johnstone “precluded Kusmider from pursuing the issue of proximate cause before the jury as he ruled that negligent failure to provide approximate medical assistance could not interrupt the proximate causation” (Kusmider v. State, 1984).

This particular scenario is cumulative but still has two issues that must be dealt with separately. The first is psychiatric injury suffered by the claimant . Also, it must be established whether Bricks R Us can apply negligent contribution as their defence against Ronnie's claims. The final issue concerns the stabbing and if Ronnie was rightfully imprisoned.

　　The basic assumptions of classical theory of crime causation is the belief that the majority of human beings are are fundamentally rational and that human behavior is the result of free will, meaning that people should be free to choose how they act.

As a result of the Defendant’s Actions, Mrs. Summers has a medical injury that entitle her to damages.

The idea of blame, defined as, “A particular kind of response (e.g. emotion), to a person, at fault, for a wrongful action,” plays a significant role in the study of crime, with respect to degrees of “fault.” In most modern societies, “criminal culpability,” or degrees of wrongdoing, makes a difference between the kinds of punishment one receives for his action(s). To be culpable for a crime, there must be a guilty act (Actus Rea), and a guilty mind (Mens Rea). Degrees of culpability often depends on the kind of mental state, (Mens Rea), one brings to the act in which he engaged. How much one is blameworthy for wrongful conduct depends in part on the state of mind in relation to the wrongful conduct. One’s mental state while engaging in wrongful conduct, which in a legal sense is determined by legislators, is characterized by the following terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligence.

Every action cannot be a cause and effect if there is a choice to change from one belief to another.

All crimes consisted of an act is carried out with minds that have planned a guilty thought according to common law. Criminal intent can be the basis of fault and punishment according to intent is a solid promise of the criminal justice according to modern society. Crimes that lack the intent element are less common and are usually graded lower, as either misdemeanors or infractions. Specific intent is the intent with the highest level of culpability for crimes other than murder. Specific intent means that the defendant acts with a more sophisticated level of awareness (Connecticut Jury Instructions No. 2.3-1, 2011).When you hold someone liable for an offense without considering the carelessness of the person then we refers to it strict liability. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. Concurrence in the law is the requirement that a guilty mental state coincide with a guilty

While researchers will never state that one variable caused another variable to occur, as there are so many variables to consider in social science research.

The Law of Causation states that nothing can happen without being caused. The cause must be Adequate to the effect and it must precede or coincide with the effect. For example, a butterfly flapping its wings cannot cause a hurricane, or pulling the trigger on a gun will cause it to fire. Causality can be applied anywhere in the known universe and it will always be correct, or will it? When thinking about causation, it seems that we apply this to life every day and don’t even realize it. For example, finding someone lying on the ground yelling out in pain from a fractured leg immediately raises the question, what happened? The leg didn’t decide to fracture itself, something had to have caused the leg to fracture. No matter where this law is applied, ultimately it will bring you to the beginning, which really isn’t the beginning at all, it’s merely the end of our known knowledge of the universe. This couldn’t possibly be the beginning because the law of causation does not allow it.

Ragnarr, must prove to the court that due to the states negligent actions he will consequently experience economic loss. Causation refers to whether the defendants conduct (or omission), in this case The State Of Victoria, caused the resulting harm or damage. The common law of negligence obliges instigation of causation for the purposefulness of attaching legal accountability. Another element that must be proven is that it is applicable for the scope of the negligent persons liability to extend to the harm so caused (scope of liability ). As it is a case of negligence the onus of proving, on the balance of probabilities, is weighed upon our client, the plaintiff Mr. Ragnarr. Even if the ‘but for’ test is applied to the current situation in the case, the outcome would be that the loss suffered by the plaintiff would have only occurred if the defendant acted negligently, which they did, and therefore if they hadn’t have acted in that way, then our client would not have been publicly humiliated by the State Of Victoria as a result. The court must deliberate whether it is suitable to extend the scope of the defendant negligence to the harm caused to the plaintiff and our client, Mr. Ragnarr. The harm that occurred, or similar harm, must have been foreseeable in order for it to reach within the scope of liability upon the

Someone is liable for his or her crime even if he or she is not the main contributor to the action. This idea can be critiqued in Robert Louis Stevenson’s novel Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. In Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Henry Jekyll, a scientist, divides his personality and believes that he is not responsible for is other half, Hyde. Hyde does some pretty gruesome and despicable things and Jekyll does not feel much remorse for what has happened because he thinks he is not responsible. Unfortunately, Hyde’s evil becomes too powerful and the normal Jekyll cannot win. Although Jekyll has an opposing disposition to Hyde, Hyde is a part of him; therefore Jekyll is responsible.

In part 1 of this essay, we will examine the difference between factual causation and legal causation. In part 2, we will examine the judgements in both cases and how the courts applied the material contribution test to both. In part 3, our analytical section, we will examine how both of these cases have blurred the distinction between legal and factual causation and argue that the material contribution test has changed the path of the law for future cases.

I believe a weakness of this theory is that it does not explain why everyone commits crime. It also shifts the blame from the individual who committed the crime to the factors that may have caused the crime to take place. An example would be instead of the person who steals being blamed for the crime, the blame is then on the environment because it is a low