Causation in criminal law is about connecting a person’s actions or lack thereof to the resulting harm or

consequences. It’s a crucial concept used to determine if someone can be held accountable for the
outcomes of their actions in a criminal context. Causation helps establish the link between what the
defendant did and the harm suffered by the victim.

Factual causation, also known as “but-for” causation, focuses on whether the harm would have occurred
regardless of the defendant’s actions. In simpler terms, it asks if the harm would have happened anyway,
even without the defendant’s involvement. If the harm would not have occurred without the
defendant’s actions, factual causation is established.

Legal causation, also called “proximate cause” or “reasonable foreseeability,” goes beyond factual
causation. It examines whether the harm caused by the defendant was a reasonably foreseeable
consequence of their actions. Legal causation considers fairness and justice in holding the defendant
legally responsible for the outcome. It sets limits on a defendant’s liability by excluding remote or
unforeseeable consequences.

An investigative act refers to actions taken by law enforcement or authorized individuals to gather
evidence and investigate a crime. It includes activities like conducting searches, questioning suspects or
witnesses, collecting physical or digital evidence, or any action aimed at obtaining relevant information
for a criminal investigation.

“Mobius Act” does not exist as a recognized term in criminal law.

An act of God refers to an unforeseen and unavoidable event that prevents someone from fulfilling a
legal duty or obligation. It applies to situations where individuals are unable to perform an action or
comply with a legal requirement due to uncontrollable circumstances beyond their control, such as
natural disasters or extreme weather conditions.

Here are ten scenarios that illustrate the concept of causation in criminal law:

1. A person stabs another, causing the victim’s death. Factual causation is established because the
victim wouldn’t have died “but for” the defendant’s stabbing. Legal causation is determined by
assessing whether the death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the stabbing.
2. A driver runs a red light, resulting in a collision that causes significant injuries to occupants of
another vehicle. Factual causation exists because the injuries wouldn’t have occurred “but for”
the driver’s violation of traffic laws. Legal causation is determined by examining whether the
injuries were reasonably foreseeable from running a red light.

3. A store owner intentionally leaves a slippery substance on the floor, causing a customer to slip
and get injured. Factual causation is present because the customer wouldn’t have slipped “but
for” the store owner’s actions. Legal causation depends on whether leaving a slippery substance
was reasonably foreseeable to cause injury.

4. A person manufactures and sells illegal drugs, leading to an individual’s drug overdose. Factual
causation is established since the overdose wouldn’t have occurred “but for” the defendant’s
drug manufacturing and distribution. Legal causation is determined by assessing whether the
overdose was a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

5. A group conspires to commit a robbery, and during the crime, one participant accidentally kills a
bystander. Factual causation is established because the bystander wouldn’t have been killed “but
for” the participants’ decision to commit the robbery. Legal causation is evaluated to determine
if the bystander’s death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

6. A doctor administers the wrong medication to a patient, resulting in severe allergic reactions and
death. Factual causation exists because the patient wouldn’t have died “but for” the doctor’s
administration of the incorrect medication. Legal causation is examined to determine if the
patient’s death was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the doctor’s negligence.

7. A person sets fire to a building, which spreads and destroys neighboring properties. Factual
causation is evident since the fire wouldn’t have