Reference no: EM133276735

Question: When talking about causation, one has to understand its importance in the criminal law.

Causation ensures the fairness in contributing to whether the defendant sufficiently contributed to the crime committed. This is backed up by two important aspects: factual and legal causation (Law Teacher, 2018). Law Teacher (2018), states that legal causation requires that the defendant's conduct it connected to the crime and that factual causation is based purely on facts alone based off the 'but for' test. This strongly helps during prosecution because it allows for justification of whether the crime was caused by the offenders' actions or prior reasons.

When discussing the legal causation there are certain principles that have to be considered which include: the defendant's action is the substantial cause of crime and that the defendant's contribution be significant but not substantial (Law, Teacher, 2018). This helps justify whether the actions of the offender were used to cause harm to the victim.

However, if a third party is involved in the crime legal causation can be more complicated. According to the Legal Dictionary (n.d.), intervening cause is the separate act that can break the connection between the defendant's actions and the injury of the other person involved. It is very common for the criminal defendant to use the intervening cause to escape liability.

Natural forces and negligent human conduct are the most common intervening causes. Take for example, a worker mops the floor at your local grocery store and leaves the water bucket out and before getting to pick up the bucket and a mild earthquake hit. When the earthquake hits, it knocks over the bucket and the water spilt everywhere. A shopper comes in after the incident and slips and breaks her hip. When going to court, the grocery store is going to argue that it was in fact the natural disaster that caused the incident and not the employer's actions.

I agree the problem was the natural disaster in your example but how long after did she enter? Depending on how long after the employee or another employee should have had time to clean up the spill. If that was the case would the store or the employee be at fault? Or would they still be able to say it eas the natural disaster?