Causation in the Law. H. L. A. Hart and Tony Honoré. Abstract. This text is an updated and extended second edition supporting the findings of its well-known. This chapter maintains that there is no satisfactory analysis of causation in non- causal terms in the huge philosophical literature on the topic. It concludes that. Criteria for the Existence of Causal Connection in Law .. Hart, H.L.A., and Tony Honoré, Causation in the Law, 2nd ed., Oxford: Clarendon.
|Published (Last):||18 December 2013|
|PDF File Size:||20.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||14.79 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The criticism of this notion of later intervention takes two forms. It also fits the rule that in most legal contexts an agency, in order to be responsible for the whole of the harm that ensues, need only be shown to be one of the causes of harm, not the sole cause. Legal, Political, and Hadt Philosophy. An action of this sort has been described as voluntary in a broad, Aristotelian sense, a use that has attracted criticism. They argue that in these cases the agency, though a causally relevant condition, did not cause the outcome.
If two huntsmen independently but simultaneously shoot and kill a third person, or two contractors independently fail to deliver essential building supplies on time, it is intuitively clear that each should be held responsible for the death or building delay.
Causation in the Law
V Causation and Sine Qua Non. Philosophy of Nonviolence Chibli Mallat. As stated earlier, in law harrt for harm can rest on risk allocation as well as on causation. To this a variety of answers empirical Hume and metaphysical Kant have been given and each has its contemporary supporters.
Whether someone is liable to ln or to pay compensation or is entitled to claim compensation often depends on showing whether the person potentially liable or entitled has caused harm ih a sort that the law seeks to avoid. Others are concerned with a specific feature that the cause must possess in relation to the consequence in order that causal connection may be made out.
In reply it is argued Mackie that in these cases all the agencies that are singly or jointly sufficient for the outcome together constitute its cause.
It is inevitably a matter of policy which base to choose, and whether to include information not known or not available to the agent when he or she or it acted. Sign in Create an account.
This objection can be met by having recourse to the risk theory, a version of the probability theory with strong support in Anglo-American writing in both criminal and civil law Keeton, Seavey, Glanville Williams. Hart and Honore on Causation and Responsibility. Law is concerned with the application of causal ideas, embodied in the language of statutes and decisions, to particular situations. It is a civil wrong to cause injury to another by negligence in driving a vehicle, but the claim is barred or reduced if the negligent conduct of the person injured is also a cause of the injury.
The Spiritual Automaton Eugene Marshall. Some focus on the type of condition that the alleged cause must constitute in relation to the alleged consequence. Academic Skip to main content. But in law the third function is particularly salient and controversial. To summarise, the idea that responsibility should depend on the agent’s having changed the course of events points in the direction of the but-for theory. The pre-empting, not the pre-empted condition is taken to be the cause of the death.
Causation in the Law (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
A second reason why causing harm is not a necessary causatlon of legal responsibility is that there are many contexts in which a person is civilly or criminally responsible irrespective of whether any harm has been caused by their conduct or that of an agency for which they are responsible.
If these criteria are then applied in attributive contexts, an agency will not be regarded as the cause of an outcome when that outcome is explained by a later abnormal action or conjunction of events or a deliberate intervention designed to bring it about. The importance of these questions is that responsibility in law very often depends on showing that a specific action or event or state of affairs has caused specific harm or loss to another. Reason in Action John Finnis. Again, legal responsibility is often imposed, in the context of interpersonal relationships, on those who influence others by advising, encouraging, helping, permitting, coercing, deceiving, misinforming or ln opportunities to others that motivate or enable them to act in a way that is honors to themselves or to others.
The latter view is consistent with causal minimalism. An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 9 Civil War American History: The last topic is treated in two parts: Must the cause be a necessary condition, a sufficient condition or a necessary member of a set of conditions that are together sufficient for the outcome? The chief grounds proposed are that responsibility is limited i when a later intervention of a certain type is a condition of the harmful outcome ii when the agency has not substantially increased the probability of the harmful outcome that in fact supervenes and iii when the causal link involves a series of steps and ultimately peters out, so that the outcome is too remotely connected with the alleged cause.
These normative considerations are, however, more concerned with the rules of proof in law than with what has to be proved. Clarendon Press,pp. NESS supporters therefore appeal to the idea that particular causal links are instances of generalisations about the way in which events are connected.