Causality (law)
In jurisprudence, the term causality describes the specific cause-and-effect relationship between a legal act (act, event) and the legal success triggered by it . Different theories of causality have been developed for the different areas of law , the aim of which is to differentiate the legally relevant causes from the non-legally relevant causes.
The causality must be distinguished from the legal concept of the causal transaction .
Causality in Criminal Law
In criminal law, causality means the attribution of the success of a crime, such as the killing of a person ( Section 212 of the Criminal Code ).
Scientific causality
In the case of successful offenses and offenses that are qualified as success , an act is then regarded as causal for the actual success if it cannot be ignored without the actual success of the offense being lost. This definition goes back to Maximilian von Buri and is known as the conditio-sine-qua-non formula or condition theory. This formula continues to use the jurisprudence and also the prevailing doctrine.
According to the theory of equivalence , all actions that bring about success are equivalent. The causal connection is therefore only interrupted if another condition leads to success without continuing the previous one. If, for example, someone is taught poison, but he is shot by someone else before it becomes deadly, only the shooter is to be punished for an accomplished deed, the prevented poisoner only for an attempted homicide.
It is irrelevant whether the actual success was partly caused by further or later circumstances, as long as the actual success realizes the cause set by the perpetrator.
The doctrine of the “legal condition” is represented as a restrictive teaching in science. Like the condition theory, it assumes the equivalence of all causes, but tries to compensate for weaknesses in the conditio-sine-qua-non formula. A condition is causal when it has actually become effective in concrete success due to a legal relationship.
Thus, according to the equivalence theory, the production of a knife is causal for a murder committed with it, according to the doctrine of the legal condition not.
Objective attribution
In certain cases, the scientific causality is adequately limited by the normative criterion of objective attribution, e.g. in the case of atypical events, an abnormal constitution of the victim or distant causal contributions with only a low probability of contributing to the success of the crime.
Causality in Civil Law
According to Section 823 (1) of the German Civil Code ( BGB) , an unlawful act requires compensation for the resulting damage. In tort and damage law , the claim for damages must therefore be assigned to a specific opponent.
A distinction must be made between the liability-establishing causality between the actions of the injuring party and the violation of a legal interest of the injured party and the liability-fulfilling causality between the violation of a legal interest and the occurrence and scope of damage.
criteria
Causality in the scientific sense is also a necessary, but not yet sufficient, requirement for damage attribution in civil law. From the point of view of adequacy and with the criterion of protective purpose of the standard, efforts are made to limit the obligation to pay compensation.
According to the conditio-sine-qua-non formula , as a rule, any condition is likely to cause harm. With the adequacy theory , however, one eliminates all those causal processes that cannot reasonably be attributed to the injuring party. If damage cannot be foreseen, liability for it is excluded. In addition, especially in the event of a violation of a protective law ( Section 823 (2) BGB), this law must be suitable to prevent a violation of legal interests of the type that has occurred (so-called protective purpose context or doctrine of the scope of protection of the standard ).
Individual cases
An expansion of the general concept of causality results from Section 830 (1) sentence 2 of the German Civil Code . According to this, everyone is responsible for the damage if “it cannot be determined who of several parties involved caused the damage through his action”. The prerequisite is that everyone - apart from proving the causality - has committed an unlawful act that was specifically suited to causing the damage. It must also be established that one of the alternative perpetrators caused the damage. Further exceptions are contained in § 6 , § 7 UmweltHG and § 84 (2) AMG .
A distinction is made in detail:
- alternative causality (regulated in Section 830 (1) sentence 2 BGB): One of several actions was the cause, but it cannot be determined which (case of the so-called copyright doubt); This must be distinguished from the constellation of the proportionality doubt: several actions jointly caused a success, but it is unclear to what extent each individual cause was reflected in the success (example: two factories discharge sewage into a river, which causes fish to die).
- Double causality : Each action would in itself, individually, be causal (example: two fatal doses of the same poison in coffee).
- Hypothetical causality : The act of the crime is causal, although the success of the crime would presumably “have occurred anyway” due to another, independent event (example: A shoots B at the airport, the plane that B tried to take crashes). It is questionable, however, whether this example was chosen successfully. Hypothetical causality occurs in the omission offense instead of the causal connection in the action offense. Since in the case of an omission offense, no action (in the sense of a necessary condicio) can be disregarded without loss of success, the construct of hypothetical causality must be avoided. It must therefore be asked whether performing the required - but neglected - action would have rendered success ineffective. The limitation of criminal liability in this case can only depend on the question of whether the perpetrator could have averted success. So it is not an actual, but only a hypothetical causality.
- Cumulative causality : Both actions were only causal together (example: two individually non-fatal doses of poison in coffee that together lead to the success of the crime).
- Aborted / overtaking causality : The first action is overtaken by a second, which produces the (damaging) success, so that the first can no longer have an effect (example: A is poisoned by B, and shot by C before the poison takes effect).
- Psychological causality : The action becomes causal for the will formation of another, who then brings about the (damaging) success through his action.
Causality in social law
In social law , the doctrine of the legally essential condition prevails. It is particularly important for the insured events of the statutory accident insurance ( occupational accident and occupational disease ) as well as in the social compensation law , also in the assessment of an event as a work accident acc. Section 31 (1) BeamtVG .
“Essential condition” in this sense is only a condicio sine qua non , which, because of its special relationship to success, played a key role in its occurrence. Which cause is essential must be derived from the understanding of practical life about the special relationship between the cause and the occurrence of success or damage to health in the individual case. In the case of a medical assessment, the assessment of medical cause-and-effect relationships must be based on the current state of scientific knowledge.
In the case of competing causes, in particular, the mere occasion cause is not "material". It may be scientifically the cause of the damage that has occurred, but its concrete meaning takes a back seat to other causes. If the insured activity is to be regarded as a mere casual cause or if an existing damage system (previous illness) of the insured has occurred in the event of an accident, the accident insurance institution is therefore not liable. Causes in which there is only a coincidental relationship between the damage incurred and the service are irrelevant.
literature
- Heinz Barta: Causality in Social Law. Origin and function of the so-called essential condition theory. 2 vols., Berlin, 1983
- Stefan Bultmann: New approaches to the theory of the essential condition in social law . In: SGb 2016, 143.
- Ronald Harry Coase : The Problem of Social Cost , 3 J. Law & Econ. 1 (1960)
- Karl Engisch : Causality as a feature of criminal offenses , Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1931.
- HLA Hart , Tony Honoré : Causation in the Law , Oxford, Clarendon Press, 2nd edition, 1985.
- Constantin Kruse: Alternative causality in tort law , Lit Verlag, 2006, ISBN 3-8258-9127-5
- Claus Roxin : Criminal Law. General part. (Part 1). 3. Edition. Beck Verlag, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-406-42507-0 , pp. 292-309.
- Luidger Röckrath: Causality, Probability and Liability. Legal and economic analysis , CH Beck, Munich, 2004, ISBN 3-406-51769-2
- Wolfgang Spellbrink: Is there a new BSG case law on causality checks in statutory accident insurance? In: The social justice . 2017, ISSN 0490-1657 , p. 1-5 .
- Isabel Schales: Specific consequences of misconduct and hypothetical causal processes: the significance of the causal processes to be avoided by law for wrongful conduct and success , (also: University of Marburg, dissertation 2011), Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2014, ISBN 978-3-428-14340- 5 .
- Helmut Weber: The evidence of causality in civil proceedings , Tübinger jurisprudential treatises Vol. 83, 1997, ISBN 3-16-146745-0
- Martin Weitenberg: The concept of causality in the liability jurisprudence of the Union courts. At the same time a contribution to the coherence of the EU liability systems. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, European Private Law: Common Principles, Vol. 42. ISBN 978-3-84871-393-6
Web links
- Christoph Eggert: Causality issues in liability litigation IWW Institute, August 1, 2005
- Causation in the Law. In: Edward N. Zalta (Ed.): Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy .
- Thomas A. Cowan: Causation in Law in the Dictionary of the History of Ideas
Individual evidence
- ↑ Heike Jung : Causality and objective attribution to Saarland University (without year), accessed on July 3, 2016
- ↑ Udo Ebert, Kristian Kühl : Causality and objective attribution. JURA 1979, 561
- ^ Rudolf Rengier : Criminal Law, General Part . 6th edition CH Beck, Munich September 2014, § 13 Rn. 12. ISBN 978-3-406-65258-5
- ↑ Bernd Heinrich : Theories of causality ( memento of the original from July 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Status: October 1, 2012
- ↑ OLG Celle, judgment of December 13, 2001 - Az. 14 U 102/00, full text , cervical spine injury as a result of a rear-end collision
- ^ Elmar Mand: Liability-filling causality University of Marburg , 2006
- ↑ BSG , judgment of May 9, 2006 - Az. B 2 U 1/05 R full text , margin no. 17 ff.
- ↑ DGUV : Causality and evidence principles of the statutory accident insurance , accessed on July 5, 2016
- ^ Occasional cause website of the Nürtingen-Geislingen University of Economics and Environment, accessed on July 5, 2016
- ↑ BVerwG , judgment of February 25, 2010 - 2 C 81.08, full text , margin no. 10
