# The Objective Side: Causation and Imputation

Law I · Foundations of Criminal Law and the Theory of the Offence · https://tryals.app/learn/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation

## Sorting the Types First

Before linking conduct to a result, classify the offence.

| Classification | The two poles | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| **By result** | Mere-activity vs result offences | Only result offences raise causation |
| **By subject** | Common vs special offences | Special offences require a defined status |
| **By the harm** | Injury vs danger offences | Danger offences punish before harm occurs |

Offences of danger split further:
- A **concrete-danger** offence requires proof that a specific person or object was endangered.
- An **abstract-danger** offence punishes conduct that is typically dangerous, without proof of actual danger in the case.

Offences **of one's own hand** require the defendant to physically perform the act personally.

### Causation

For result offences, the baseline is the **theory of the equivalence of conditions**. Every necessary condition is a cause, and all causes are equal. It uses the *conditio sine qua non* test: mentally remove the conduct and see if the result still occurs.

This test casts too wide a net. Two internal corrections emerged:
- The theory of **adequate causation** counts only conditions that generally tend to produce that result.
- The theory of **relevance** distinguishes natural causation from causal relevance under the specific offence.

### Objective Imputation

Modern doctrine separates factual cause from legal responsibility. **Objective imputation** is a normative assessment with three stages:

1. The conduct must create a **legally disapproved risk**.
2. That risk must have **materialised in the result**.
3. The result must fall within the **protective scope** of the infringed norm.

Key applications include:
- **Risk reduction**: lessening a greater harm creates no disapproved risk.
- **Permitted risk**: socially tolerated danger, such as normal driving, is not disapproved.
- **Self-endangerment**: if the victim freely assumes the risk, the result is not imputed to another.
- **Atypical causal courses**: unexpected intervening events break the connection to the initial risk.

> **Common pitfall:** answering "did the conduct cause the result?" and stopping. Causation is necessary, but it is never sufficient.

## Practice questions

9 of this lesson's 14 practice questions, with answers. The full set is in the app.

### 1. A man is stabbed, survives the wound, and dies that night when the hospital burns down. The stabbing was a condition without which he would not have died. Why is the death nonetheless not attributed to the assailant?

A. The hospital fire broke the chain of causation, so he did not cause the death
B. The risk that materialised in the death was not the risk his conduct created
C. Because surviving the initial wound establishes an act of successful risk reduction
D. The protective scope of the infringed norm does not cover bodily injuries of any kind

**Answer:** B. The risk that materialised in the death was not the risk his conduct created

**Why:** Because causation and **imputation** are two questions and only the first is satisfied. The stabbing created a risk of death from blood loss; the man died of a risk of fire, which the assailant did not create. The option regarding the broken chain of causation gets the right conclusion for the wrong reason: factual causation is intact, and it is the normative attribution that fails.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/a-man-is-stabbed-survives-the-wound-and-dies-that-night-when-the

### 2. Under the theory of the equivalence of conditions, only a condition that generally tends to produce results of that kind counts as a cause.

**Answer:** False

**Why:** **False**: that is the theory of **adequate causation**, which was proposed precisely because equivalence counts too much. On the equivalence test every condition without which the result would not have occurred is a cause, and all are equally causes, which is why the knife seller comes out as a cause of the killing.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/under-the-theory-of-the-equivalence-of-conditions-only-a-condition

### 3. Which are true of offences of danger?

A. A concrete-danger offence requires proof that a specific object or person was actually put at risk
B. Abstract-danger offences are criticised for punishing at a distance from any harm to a legal good
C. A danger offence and a result offence are two names for the same category
D. An abstract-danger offence punishes conduct that is typically dangerous, without proof of danger in the particular case

**Answer:** A. A concrete-danger offence requires proof that a specific object or person was actually put at risk; B. Abstract-danger offences are criticised for punishing at a distance from any harm to a legal good; D. An abstract-danger offence punishes conduct that is typically dangerous, without proof of danger in the particular case

**Why:** The fourth mixes two independent classifications. A concrete-danger offence does require a result, the state of danger, and an offence of injury also requires one. The axes cross rather than coincide, which is why an offence has to be located on both before anything follows about what must be proved.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/which-are-true-of-offences-of-danger

### 4. Under Article 138 of the Criminal Code, what is the minimum term of imprisonment, in years, for homicide?

**Answer:** 10

**Why:** **Ten years**, with a maximum of fifteen. Carry the range rather than the single figure: almost every arithmetic exercise in this unit — degrees, halves, reductions for attempt or complicity — starts from a statutory range, and homicide is the one used most often as the worked example.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/under-article-138-of-the-criminal-code-what-is-the-minimum-term-of

### 5. A man is injured by the accused and dies in a hospital fire that night. Arrange the questions the court works through, in order.

**Answer:**

1. Did the accused's conduct cause the injury?
2. Did that conduct create a legally disapproved risk?
3. Was it that risk, rather than another, that produced the death?
4. Does the result fall within the protective scope of the norm breached?

**Why:** The sequence is what makes the case tractable. Causation is admitted at the first step and the analysis does not stop there; the second step is satisfied; the third fails, because the man died of fire and not of the wound. Working in order shows precisely where the attribution breaks, which a single global judgment never does.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/a-man-is-injured-by-the-accused-and-dies-in-a-hospital-fire-that

### 6. A result that materialises a risk different from the one the conduct created is not objectively imputable to that conduct.

**Answer:** True

**Why:** **True**, and it is the second of the two core requirements. Creating a disapproved risk is not enough; that very risk must be the one that produced the result. This is the requirement that resolves the hospital-fire case, the case of the victim who dies in the ambulance crash, and the whole family of atypical causal courses.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/a-result-that-materialises-a-risk-different-from-the-one-the-conduct

### 7. Sort each offence by the classification based on who can commit it.

**Answer:**

- Common offence: Homicide by anyone, Theft by anyone
- Special offence: Prevarication by official, Custodial breach of duty
- Offence of one's own hand: Perjury by a witness, Bigamy by marrying person

**Why:** The third column matters for the next lesson. Because an offence of one's own hand requires the author to perform the act personally, someone who uses another person as an instrument cannot be its author, the doctrine of indirect authorship simply does not reach it, however complete their control of the event.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/sort-each-offence-by-the-classification-based-on-who-can-commit-it

### 8. Match each situation to the objective-imputation criterion that resolves it.

**Answer:**

- Deflecting a falling beam so it strikes a shoulder rather than a head → Risk reduction: the conduct diminished an existing danger
- Driving carefully within the traffic rules and still causing an accident → Permitted risk: the activity is dangerous and socially tolerated
- Supplying a drug to an adult who knowingly takes a dangerous dose → Self-endangerment: the victim freely and knowingly ran the risk
- A person injured in a crash dies when the ambulance is struck by another vehicle → Atypical causal course: the realised risk was not the one created

**Why:** Reading the four together shows objective imputation is not one test but a family of them, held together by a single question: was this result the realisation of a risk the law forbade this person to create? Each criterion answers no for a different reason.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/match-each-situation-to-the-objective-imputation-criterion-that

### 9. Mere-activity offences require no external result, whereas result offences do. What practical consequence follows from this structural distinction when determining criminal liability?

A. Causation must only be verified for result offences
B. Mere-activity offences require proof of concrete harm
C. Only result offences require a legally disapproved risk
D. Imputation rules entirely replace causation in both types

**Answer:** A. Causation must only be verified for result offences

**Why:** Confusing structural requirements leads students to apply causation universally or mistake activity offences for harm offences. In criminal doctrine, physical causation is logically irrelevant without a separable result.

Page: https://tryals.app/practice/law-i/the-objective-side-causation-and-imputation/mere-activity-offences-require-no-external-result-whereas-result