1. Causation (causal link) in philosophy - a relationship that describes and analyses cause and effect a key element to establish liability in both criminal and civil law (both contract- and tort law) dr R. Strugała WPAiE

2. Causation (causal link) causal connection between tortious event (i.e. negligent act or omission, strict liability circumstances’ materialisation) and consequential damage or between the breach of contract and consequential damage dr R. Strugała WPAiE

3. Causation (causal link) causality requirement: vital role in tort law, but no specific statutory provisions in the area causation rules are being developed by the courts: - various test with similar outcomes dr R. Strugała WPAiE

4. Establishing causation conditio sine qua non test (all jurisdictions) condition without which the damage would not have occurred ‘but-for’ test – Anglo –American systems dr R. Strugała WPAiE

5. conditio sine qua non Eliminating the alleged cause: would the damage at stake also have occured if the (alleged) tortfeasor had not acted in the way he really did? The answer is negative = requirement of causation is met The answer is positive = requirement of causation is not met dr R. Strugała WPAiE

6. conditio sine qua non application A driver collides with a pedestrian on a crossing. Did the driver cause physical damage to the pedestrian? The latter would not have suffered damage if the driver had stopped in time!! dr R. Strugała WPAiE

7. conditio sine qua non application A driver collides with a pedestrian on a crossing. Did the driver cause dead of the pedestrian, if it was established that latter got a heart attack right before he was hit? The pedestrian would have died, even if the driver had stopped in time (would have died anyway)!!!! dr R. Strugała WPAiE

8. Establishing and limiting causation? 1. John Doe drove at 100 km/h ( recklessly violating traffic laws ). Seeing this through the window his grandma got a heart attack. Is John Doe liable for the loss suffered by his grandma (e.g. costs of recovery)? 2.John Doe ordered a suit from a tailor. According to the contractual provisions, the suit should be ready on Moneday. However the tailor was late and John Doe got his suit on Thuesday. Thus, he did not travel to Warsaw on Moneday (as planned!!) but on Thuesday, right after receiving the suit. The train had an accident and John Doe was seriously injured. Is the tailor liable in damages? dr R. Strugała WPAiE

9. The need for limitation Electricity cable is negligently cut, causing damage not only the owner of that cable but also to a neighboring tile factory which cannot operate. The factory cannot deliver to the builder and thus the builder is not able to finish the house within the time limit agreed with his customer. The customer has to book into a hotel where he is seriously injured in a fire. For all these consequences, the cut cable is conditio sine qua non. dr R. Strugała WPAiE

10. Limiting causation The sine qua non test accepts all events and circumstances as possible causes regardless of whether it would be just to imply the liability (see the tailor case and the grandma case!!) The sine qua non test considers all consequences as equal regardless of whether they are likely or unlikely, foreseeable or unforeseeable, direct or remote dr R. Strugała WPAiE

11. The way of limiting causation (= limiting liability) The instruments used to limit the consequences of the application of ‘but for’ test are manifold Many jurisdictions = many ways, similar results Common denominators (policy reasons): greater protection of personal injury victims accepted dr R. Strugała WPAiE

12. Establishing and limiting causation The conditio sine qua non test is generally considered to focus on facts – ‘factual causation’ The tools (doctrines, principles) used to limit this factual causation are referred to as ‘legal causation’ (foreseeability, only ‘normal’ or 'adequate' consequences, etc.) dr R. Strugała WPAiE

13. English law But for test (factual causation) + forseeability test (legal causation) Recoverable damage = damage that both 1)meets the but for test and 2)could reasonably be foreseen (objective test) by the tortfeasor – is not too remote The scope of the rule: negligence, strict liability cases (e.g.nuisance) dr R. Strugała WPAiE

14. Forseeability (remotness) The Wagon Mound no 1 [1961] AC 388 House of Lords The defendant's vessel, The Wagon Mound, leaked oil at a Wharf in Sydney Harbour. Some cotton debris became embroiled in the oil and sparks from some welding works ignited the oil. The fire spread rapidly causing destruction of some boats and the wharf.  The damage caused by pollution (e.g. costs of removing oil) was foreseeable; damage directly caused by fire was not dr R. Strugała WPAiE

15. France A very broad concept of causation: causal connection needs to be certain and direct Examples: a tram company that lost income when tramlines were blocked as a result of traffic accident (lost income as a direct consequence of the traffic) The tool of limitation – probability (normal consequence): A concert organiser claimed money from the person liable for the accident which caused the singer to cancel the concert. The Cour de cassation deemed his damage to be indirect (but for test met, but it is not a normal consequence) and dismissed the claim. dr R. Strugała WPAiE

16. Germany Causation establishing liability (1) Causation determining the scope of liability (2) (1)haftungsbegründene Kausalität: between a tortious event and the violation of a right (2) haftungsausfüllende Kausalität between the violation of a right and a consequential damage (1) but for test + adequacy (2) but for test only dr R. Strugała WPAiE

17. Italy (doppia causalità) Causation establishing liability (1) Causation determining the scope of liability (2) (1)c causalità di fatto : between a tortious event and the violation of a right (2) causalità giuridica : between the violation of a right and a consequential damage (1) but for test + adequacy (2) but for test only dr R. Strugała WPAiE

18. Germany/Italy/Poland A hit B in a car accident. B (a football player) was not able to work for half a year and lost 1000 000 Euro (lost profit). To lose 1000 000 is not an adequate (normal) consequence, thus there is no causal link - true or false? Tortious event (driving too fast) - (I) violating bodily integrity - loss of money (II) I) but for test + adequacy test II) only but for test dr R. Strugała WPAiE