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):||4 February 2010|
|PDF File Size:||9.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||16.52 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
It also requires that the purpose of the honoee should encompass harm of the sort for which a remedy is sought. First, in legal contexts people are often made responsible for harm caused by other persons e.
The most persuasive explanations of an outcome are those that point to a condition that is abnormal or unexpected in the context or to a deliberate action designed to bring the outcome about. Our Faithfulness to the Past Sue Campbell. If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.
IV Causation in Legal Theory. In the legal theory of causatipn this problem is of causstion importance. Academic Skip to main content. Mill’s notion of a jointly sufficient set of conditions. XV Evidence and Procedure.
The criticism of this notion of later intervention takes two forms. The Legacy of H.
Causation in the Law – H. L. A. Hart, Tony Honoré – Google Books
The Influence of H. Did one action, event, process or state of affairs event for short cause another? Whether complicity in the agency of another can be regarded as causal or analogous has been denied Moore but defended Gardner. The existence of this wide spectrum of causal or near-causal grounds of responsibility recognised in law and morality raises the question whether any uniform theory of causation is capable of accounting for all of them. Philippa Foot – – Philosophical Review 72 4: They vary from one branch of the law and one legal system to another.
Are the criteria adopted in deciding these causal issues both objective and properly attuned to hnore function of fixing responsibility? For example, gonore a rule requiring machinery to be fenced is designed to prevent harmful contact between the machinery and the bodies of workmen, a workman who suffers psychological harm from the noise made by the unfenced machine cannot ground a claim for compensation on the failure to fence.
Causation in the Law in Philosophy of Law categorize this paper.
Clarendon Press, Some focus on the type of condition that the alleged cause must constitute in relation to the alleged consequence. Law is concerned with the application of causal ideas, embodied in the language of statutes and decisions, to particular situations.
The fencing requirement was not designed to reduce noise, even though a proper barrier would have reduced the noise to such an extent as hrat avoid the psychological trauma.
For example, all systems of law hold that a person can be guilty of homicide only if he or yonore has caused another’s death. To do so in civil law may result in saddling a person guilty of momentary carelessness with massive losses Waldron.
Other Internet Resources Fumerton, R.
Causation in the Law – H. L. A. Hart; Tony Honoré – Oxford University Press
Hart Publishing,pp. But one who wrongfully delays a passenger who is as a result obliged to board a later airplane, which crashes, is not the adequate cause of the passenger’s death in the crash. Publications Pages Publications Pages. For a person to be legally responsible for causing harm to another requires, apart from a number of conditions relating to jurisdiction, procedure and proof, that the conduct should be of the sort that the law designates as honlre e. It is indeed not open to dispute that at least two non-causal factors limit the extent of legal responsibility.
There are however cases in which the but-for test is difficult to reconcile with our intuitive cauxation of responsibility. Which condition is taken to preempt the other is sometimes controversial but it is clear than in reaching a decision attention must be paid to the stages and processes by which the alleged causes lead to the harmful outcome.
Causation in the Law
Unlike causztion, they are concerned with responsibility for good as well as bad outcomes. The theory also draws on Mackie’s idea, in the context of causal generalisations, of an INUS condition insufficient but non-redundant part of an unnecessary but sufficient condition. In law the main grounds of responsibility for harm are therefore i an agent’s personal responsibility for causing harm and ii a person’s responsibility arising from the fact that he, she czusation it bears the risk of having to answer in legal proceedings for the harm in question.
The relationship between causing harm and legal responsibility is however complex. 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 providing opportunities to others that motivate or enable them to act in a way that is harmful to themselves or to causqtion.
In the context of application the notion of cause is a multi-purpose tool. As regards attributive uses of cause, the fact that the law has to attend simultaneously both to the meaning of terms importing causal criteria and to the purpose of legal rules and their moral status makes the theory of causation a terrain of debate cajsation does not at present command general agreement and is likely to remain controversial e.
One way of doing this is to ask what would be the fairest way of distributing the relevant social risks. But whereas historians may aim to assess the outcome of an agent’s conduct over a period or even a lifetime, law focuses on the harmful outcomes of particular actions. Here the purpose is to settle the extent of responsibility that attaches to cwusation particular human action or other event or state of affairs.
How to cite this entry. This text is an updated and extended second edition supporting the findings of its well-known predecessor which claimed that courts employ common-sense notions of causation in determining legal responsibility.
This approach has a particular attraction when a number of processes e.