Top Law Schools

Question:

If someone shoots someone in the leg and then later on in the hospital they suffer a heart attack, will they be liable for the death of the victim? Also, what if the victim had cancer, someone shoots victim, they are in the hospital recovering from the gun shot wound, but severely sick and then die, would the defendant be the proximate cause of the death?

For murder, causation = but for cause of victim's death + proximate cause (which means the death must have been a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's conduct).

For the first hypo, I think you could make an argument that causation exists. But for the defendant's shooting, the victim wouldn't have been under severe stress so as to cause him to have a heart attack. And I think having a heart attack could be a natural and probable consequence of being shot.

For the second hypo, you'd probably need more info. Usually in those types of questions, they'll throw in some information about the actual cause of death, e.g., "the coroner concluded that the cause of death was the victim's cancer." If that's the case, then the shooting wasn't the but for cause of the death, unless there are facts indicating to the contrary.

Just my 2 cents. I may or may not be 100% correct.

Remember that accelerating death = causing death. If the guy had died of cancer but the doctor said he'd have died in six months instead of six days had he not been shot, the shooter is on the hook for murder.

Georgia Avenue wrote:Remember that accelerating death = causing death. If the guy had died of cancer but the doctor said he'd have died in six months instead of six days had he not been shot, the shooter is on the hook for murder.

This. I think this is what OP was alluding to.

Just did some problems earlier - D not the proximate cause of death when his act sends victim to the hospital and then there's an earthquake where the hospital is and vic dies awaiting treatment/recovering because it's an act of God.

I disagree because I feel like D made the vic end up in the hospital so he's the prox cause but whatever

Law-So-Hard wrote:Just did some problems earlier - D not the proximate cause of death when his act sends victim to the hospital and then there's an earthquake where the hospital is and vic dies awaiting treatment/recovering because it's an act of God.

I disagree because I feel like D made the vic end up in the hospital so he's the prox cause but whatever

well not really

he's a but-for cause but an earthquake that kills the victim isn't really a foreseeable consequence of the criminal act