Intervening vs. Superseding Events & Causation Forum

[legallymidwestern]

My Criminal law final is on Wednesday, and from our class materials and the way that my professor has explained it, I'm having a hard time determining the difference between intervening and superseding causes and their effect on a criminal's liability. If anyone is a fan of Crim Law and would like to give me a better explanation on this, I would really appreciate it - thanks!

[I.P. Daly]

A dependent intervening cause will supersede the defendant's act only when it's a totally abnormal response to the d's act. For example, D intentionally punches P, causing P to suffer serious but non-life threatening injuries. P seeks medical treatment. The doctor negligently treats P and P dies. The negligent treatment is not considered abnormal and the D can be found to have proximately caused P's death.

An independent intervening cause will normally supersede the D's act, except where the independent intervening force was foreseeable. For example, D breaks into P's house and attempts to rape and kill him. P escapes and runs into the woods on an extremely cold night. P dies of exposure. D's act might be sufficient for criminal liability because of the foreseeability of P dying from exposure.

[legallymidwestern]

That's a great explanation - it makes a lot more sense now, thanks so much!