Legal Causation Rule - Essay Example

? Legal causation rule Introduction The issue of causation in offences of regulatory nature (environment and pollution cases) is a complicated issue.Courts rush between legal principles of judiciary system, law and different regulations, because no exact principles of causation and responsibility in environmental and pollution cases are developed. Thus it is necessary to develop principles of legal liability directed on environmental issues solving. Actors of environmental pollution would be concerned about their actions in the natural environment. In case environmental pollution occurs there would be a chance to compensate harmful environmental causes. Moreover, legal causation is generally based on a common experience, but in case of strict liability cases (cases of environmental pollution) there is a lack of such kind of experiences (Solan, 2001). There are scientific explanations of environmental offences. Scientific explanations are not enough for judges or jury to pass a sentence (Boden, Miyares, Ozonoff, 1988, p. 1019). Consequently, plaintiffs may come across many difficulties in demonstrating causation in environmental liability cases. Nevertheless there is some advancement in US judiciary system with regard to such kind of offences. Currently, courts allow juries to be rather flexible in presenting their own opinion and judgments in order to determine causation in strict liability cases (Ehring, 1997, p. 18). Legal causation rule in criminal law Causation in criminal law refers to "causal relationship between conduct and result" (Hart and Honore, 1959, p. 91). Causation explains effect of conducted misbehavior. A term “actus reus (an action) implies action causing specific injury or damage effect when combined with mens rea (a state of mind) and guilt occurs” (Hart and Honore, 1959, p. 91). In offences of true criminality this principle works, because, for example in homicide the result of actor’s misbehavior is evident (i.e. death of a victim). It is a generally accepted norm when government intends to penalize a person for conducted misbehavior if it resulted in a destructing effect. Those injured others should be responsible for their actions. In this research we’ll consider principles of legal causation of offences of regulatory nature and ‘true’ criminality offences. Offences of regulatory nature to be considered are cases of environmental pollution. “There are also conditions for strict liability where mens rea is irrelevant to the result and subsequent liability of the actor” (Hart and Honore, 1959, p. 93). It is widely known that some physical actions may lead to unintentional damages. There are different crime causation theories. It is generally accepted to consider reasons for crime causation. An offence of regulated nature, e.g. environmental pollution is not usually considered in causation paradigm. Causation of ‘true criminality’ is usually considered with regard to causation theory. Thus criminal offences are generally explained by drug or alcohol abuse or mental health problems. A consideration of poverty may be another issue of criminal offences causation theory and may be a reason for criminal offences. I this paradigm it is supposed that criminal behavior of people is explained by poor environment. A low degree of education of certain people ‘squeezes’ them from favorable living conditions (Kemshall 2006, p. 34). Crime causation theory neglects crime explanation by human characteristics. Criminologists explain such point of view as criminals’ ability to be driven by their feelings and desires. Crime causation is often considered to result from poor upbringing conditions. Bad experience of child years leads to development of ‘potential criminological behavior’. Substance abuse is another reason for crime occurrence. Violent crimes occur on the basis of drugs and alcohol consumption, domestic violence, murders and other dreadful crimes occur as a result. Cases: offences of a regulatory nature Causation theory is much more complicated when applied to offences of a regulatory nature. For example, the issue of pollution is on the way of efficient problem solving methods. Damages caused by pollution should be legally solved. General tort remedies are not efficient in this field. Moreover, they are inefficient in recover costs offering and attorney fee payment. Florida environmentalists found a way to deal with pollution issues perfectly. Thus they provided “a statutory strict liability cause of action directed on damages recover connected with a discharge or other condition of pollution" (F.S. [section] 376.313). Consequently, this section was named “Nonexclusiveness of remedies and individual cause of action for damages under ss.376.30-376.319” (Hunter, 2011). Nevertheless this section doesn’t provide explanation of ‘who is to be blamed’ and doesn’t consider individual cause of action (4). The case Kaplan v. Peterson, 674 So. 2d 201 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996), rev. dismissed, 687 So. 2d 1305 (Fla. 1997) resulted in clean up costs remedy and the state was left on his own to decide who is to be blamed for losses experienced by the States and by private (Hunter, 2011). Statute’s statements are not enough to solve environmental accidents. Nevertheless this shift of accents may be considered to be the first step of causation of an individual in offences of regulated nature (environmental issues in our research). In accordance with Hamilton: "Laws are a dead letter without courts to pound and define their true meaning and operation"(Hunter, 2011). In practice this statement may be interpreted in the following way: on the example of F.S. [section] 376.313 a private cause of action is potentially possible. It is only necessary to define the level of a person’s causation of environmental offence case. Another case is an example of attempts to find out causation in environmental crime. In this case damages were caused by exposure to toxic pollutants (Cunningham v. Anchor Hocking, 558 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990), rev. denied, 574 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 1990). The leading claim is that a private cause may occur in discharge of pollutants (Hunter, 2011). The claimants in this case underlined that they experienced personal injury damages and “lacked any ownership interest in the property at which the discharges and exposure were alleged to have occurred, allowing one to infer from Cunningham the right to pursue, via [section]376.313, toxic exposure damages unassociated with contamination of land or water”. Consequently, this claim is inconsistent with the main objective of the Water Quality Assurance Act. The main claim with regard to claimants was that they “violated Chapter 376 by permitting pollutants to discharge upon the land and premises” (Hunter, 2011) .Thus this case gave a possibility to prove that it is possible to find out personal causation in environmental crime. Pollution of environment is often referred to the crimes of strict liability (SL) as in such kind of crimes mens rea is absent. On the basis of cases considered above, it is clearly seen that environmental pollution should be considered in a specific manner. In accordance with one scholar causation in case of toxic pollution may be eliminated (Cranor et al, 2001, p. 5). The duty of responsibility should be transferred to the parties responsible for product safety control. Another opinion is the following: “to shift the burden of proof to the defendant once the plaintiff has established a prima facie relationship between exposure and harm based on patterns of evidence similar to those that had implicated substances as likely toxic to humans” (Cranor et al, 2001, p. 6). In such a way, courts would have a possibility to solve the difficult tasks occurring in environmental pollution cases. Nevertheless the issue of legal causation remains to be rather challenging. For example, toxicity may occur in the process of aspirin consumption or benzene leading to cancer. It is necessary to focus on mechanisms leading to human damages. Nevertheless mechanisms research would be hardly helpful in tort case, but it would be beneficial for disease nature evaluation. Thus issues of toxicity are in the field of epidemiologists’ responsibility and courts remain unaware of dealing with them in cases. Another issue of legal causation of strict liability offences is finding evidence in a burden of facts, which is rather complicated and costly task. On the example of some cases on environmental pollution the law makes some presumptions which complicate evidence revelation. Thus in Sec. 88 of the Philippine Fisheries Code, the law develops a prima facie case of fishing using explosives in case of possession of explosives which was acclaimed in People v. Vergara, 270 SCRA 624 (1997) (Online).Unfortunately, following rules is not enough for legal causation of environmental offences. It is necessary to work more at the responsibility of plaintiff. For this purpose it is relevant to work at development of strict liability rules in legislature (Boston, 1995, p. 1). Unlike issue if causation considered on the example of environmental pollution issues, generally the concept of causation in criminal law was considered on the basis of criminal offences. Crime is often explained as a result of certain harm. Accused performs certain actions which lead to the presence of liability, i.e. it should be known that accused has committed a certain crime and he has to be punished for that. In case of murder the actions performed by accused should lead to death. In other criminal cases some harmful actions lead to damaging effects. The extent of liability should be measured in terms of a certain action performance. In other words, in case of homicide the extent of liability is clear, while in offences of a regulatory nature (strict liability cases in this research paper) this extent is rather vague. For modern judicial system it is relevant to develop causation principles not only for individuals, but for corporations. As a matter of fact, environmental pollution is often caused as consequences of their production activities. Thus it is possible to discuss causation of this kind of offences in international human rights law (Boden, Miyares, Ozonoff, 1988, p. 1020). With this regard it is necessary to establish legal causation between corporate potential environmental offence and its influence on human health. Currently, victims lack knowledge of the ways to prove causation In cases when different sources of pollution take place, or there is a wide dispersed area of the harmful effects, or in case when chemical reactions of a certain substance with other substances are complex (Boden, Miyares, Ozonoff, 1988, p. 1021).  That’s why causation is developed in accordance with natural science. It is necessary to make an emphasis on legal causation in this kind of offence. Causation in this paradigm may be considered from two different perspectives: as general and specific causation. General causation may be referred to in case when toxic effects influences on the human body (Cross, 1990). Specific causation refers to specific effects exerted on an individual (applicant). The European judicial system propagates the following vision of causation: “judges are 'norm entrepreneurs', who understand legal causation as a question of will and cognition in the legal culture rather than a systemic limitation in law” (Boden, Miyares, Ozonoff, 1988, p. 1021). In such a way, this propagation shifted accents of the European system where environmental values are currently accommodated and principles of general causation are underlined. Nevertheless, there is a lack of theoretical and empirical support. Thus this norm is not generally accepted in the world. On the contrary, the Inter-American and African systems propagate the claim that collective rights facilitate the problems of legal causation because it tends to witness general causation. Conclusion Consequently, principles of legal causation are in the process of development. On the basis of cases considered in this research paper we can clearly see that principles of causation in strict liability cases are often interpreted in courts in a different manner. There are many underdeveloped issues, such as the issue of plaintiff’s responsibility, value of a scientific approach applied to the cases, individual/or collective responsibility etc. Unlike offences of ‘true criminality’, where the issue of causation is clearly defined via mens rea principle and a direct relationship between conduct and the result of offence, offences of ‘regulatory nature’ don’t have exact criteria to evidence causation. Works cited 1. Boden, L.L., Miyares, J.R., Ozonoff, D., 1988. Science and persuasion: environmental disease in U.S. courts. Soc Science Medicine 27(10): pp. 1019-29. 2. Boston, G.W., 1995. Toxic Apportionment: A Causation and Risk Contribution Model. Environmental Law, 25, p. 1+. 3. Cranor, C. and Eastmond, D. A., 2001. Scientific Ignorance and Reliable Patterns of Evidence in Toxic Tort Causation: Is There a Need for Liability Reform? Law and Contemporary Problems 64 (4), p. 5+. 4. Cross, F. B., 1990. Legal Responses to Indoor Air Pollution. Quorum Books. 5. Ehring, D., 1997. Causation and Persistence: A Theory of Causation. Oxford University Press. 6. Hart, H.L.A. and Honore, T., 1959. Causation in the Law. Clarendon Press. 7. Hunter, G. K. Jr., 2011. Statutory strict liability for environmental contamination: a private cause of action to remedy pollution or mere legislative jargon? Florida Bar Journal. [online] Available at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6367/is_n1_72/ai_n28701815/ [Accessed 12 Jan 2011] 8. Kemshall, H. et al., 2006. Young People, Pathways and Crime: Beyond Risk Factors. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39, p. 34+. 9. People v. Vergara, 270 SCRA 62. [online] Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/28377200/Scra-Cases [Accessed 12 Jan 2011] 10. Solan, L. M., 2001. Causation, Contribution, and Legal Liability: An Empirical Study. Law and Contemporary Problems 64, p. 3+. Read More