Superseding causality in German civil and criminal law
Superseding causality is a central concept in German civil and criminal law, especially in tort law and criminal law as part of the causality review. It describes a specific scenario in a chain of causation in which an initial cause is replaced in its effect on the protected legal interest by a later, independent event (“superseding event”). The following article explains in detail the definition, legal basis, types, practical application, and issues relating to superseding causality.
Definition and basic concept of superseding causality
Superseding causality refers to a situation in which an initially commenced causal chain is interrupted by an added, independent, and sufficient event (superseding cause) that brings about the result independently of the first cause. The initial cause thus becomes legally irrelevant for the occurrence of the result.
Distinguishing from other forms of causality
Superseding causality must be distinguished from alternative and cumulative causality:
- Alternative causality: Two independent causes, each of which could have brought about the result on its own, but in fact only one actually led to the result.
- Cumulative causality: Two independent causes simultaneously affect the protected legal interest and together cause the result, which neither cause would have brought about alone.
- Superseding causality: A second cause arises after the first and its effect replaces or “supersedes” that of the first in relation to the occurrence of the result.
Superseding causality in criminal law
Significance for objective attribution and causality
In criminal law, when determining criminal liability, the first step is to examine whether there is a causal link between the act and the occurrence of the result (“conditio sine qua non” formula). Superseding causality becomes relevant when, after a perpetrator’s action, a new, independent event occurs that alone is decisive for the result.
Example from criminal law practice
A poisons B with a lethal dose, but before the poison takes effect, C shoots B. B’s death is solely attributable to C’s act; the poison had no actual impact on the death. In this case, C’s act supersedes the original cause (the poison). A can no longer be punished for manslaughter, as his contribution is no longer causally relevant for the occurrence of the result.
Irrelevance of the initial act for the result
According to the “conditio sine qua non” formula, the initial act would, in principle, be causal if it cannot be omitted without the result failing to occur. However, with superseding causality, a dividing line is assumed: the superseding event displaces the initial act as the cause for the result. Legally, from the moment the new, fatal cause intervenes, the result can no longer be attributed to the first act.
Superseding causality in civil law
Requirements for claims and interruption of attribution
In civil law as well, especially in compensation law (§ 249 ff. BGB), superseding causality plays a role, particularly in determining the relationship of attribution. If another independent damaging event occurs that would have been sufficient to cause the damage on its own, the first wrongdoer is no longer liable for subsequent damage.
Example of application in civil law
A person injured in a traffic accident sustains injuries, but before complete recovery, they die due to a newly occurring event unrelated to the original injuries. In such cases, the first tortfeasor is not liable for the ultimate damage if that is solely attributable to the second event.
Consequences for the extent of liability
Superseding causality limits legal consequences to the period before the new cause intervenes. The initial cause no longer establishes liability for further damage that occurs after the superseding cause has taken effect.
Systematics and differentiation: Superseding, continuing, and hypothetical causality
Superseding vs. continuing causality
In continuing causality, the initial cause remains causal for the result (despite further external influences); in contrast, with superseding causality, the subsequent event independently brings about the result and interrupts the initial causal chain.
Hypothetical causality for differentiation
In contrast to superseding causality, hypothetical causality is characterized by the fact that the result would also have occurred in another way, even if this did not actually happen. In civil law, hypothetical causality is generally irrelevant, whereas with superseding causality the chain of attribution is completely interrupted.
Current case law on superseding causality
Court rulings, in both criminal and civil law, regularly emphasize that attribution and liability must always be assessed by reviewing the temporal and factual connection. According to general life experience, the superseding event must definitively displace the original causal sequence.
Practical example from medical law
If a patient is initially treated incorrectly but is then killed by an unavoidable, independent, and fatal event, superseding causality must be reviewed. Medical liability ends when the cause of death is effected by the new event.
Critique and legal policy significance
Assessing superseding causality is sometimes difficult in practice and may have significant effects on legal consequences, especially regarding the determination of penalty or civil compensation claims. There are regular difficulties in distinguishing between mere interruptions in causality and cases in which the original wrongdoer remains liable.
Summary
Superseding causality is a fundamental principle in German liability and criminal law for resolving situations in which a subsequent event displaces the effect of a previous act regarding the occurrence of damage or result. It must be distinguished from alternative and cumulative causality, as well as from hypothetical causality. Understanding it is essential to ensure legally secure assessment of attribution and liability in complex factual scenarios. Superseding causality excludes attribution and therefore liability of the initial actor for subsequent damages or for bringing about the result.
References
- Roxin/Greco: Criminal Law, General Part
- MüKo-BGB, Volume 1, § 249 BGB, commentary on causality
- Fischer: Criminal Code and ancillary statutes, causality and attribution theory
- Palandt: Civil Code, § 249 Rn. 20 ff.
Note: The term “superseding causality” is central to the assessment of liability and causality in complex circumstances under German law and is one of the key concepts for allocating consequences of damage and results.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is superseding causality assessed in criminal law?
In criminal law, superseding causality is assessed on the basis of the so-called doctrine of legally relevant condition (conditional theory) and the principle of causality. Superseding causality exists when an earlier causal act for a result is later “superseded” and displaced by another, independent cause, so the original action is no longer attributable for the result. What matters is that the second act brings about the result independently of the first act before the causal chain set in motion by the first act can lead to the result. Case law regularly connects this to the criterion of the “irrelevance” of the initial cause at the time of the result. Only if the initial cause is still effective at the time of the result and has not been displaced does it remain relevant under criminal law.
What is the role of superseding causality in objective attribution?
For objective attribution, an act is only attributable if it was precisely the conduct of the perpetrator that caused a legally objectionable result. If there is superseding causality, this attribution is interrupted because the result occurred independently of the initial act. Objective attribution then ceases to apply, as the risk realised in the result derives not from the initial act but from the second act, which independently and decisively shaped the outcome. Superseding causality thus acts as a dividing line: the earlier act no longer serves as the basis for attribution for the later result.
How does superseding causality differ from the hypothetical reserve cause?
Superseding causality is fundamentally different from the so-called reserve cause (also: hypothetical or competing causality). In the case of a reserve cause, damage has already occurred that is attributable to the first cause. Another (hypothetical) cause would have led to the result only at a later time, but in the same way. This is not the case with superseding causality: here, the causal chain set in motion by the initial act is actually interrupted and completely displaced by a second, new cause before the result occurs. Only if the second act actually displaces the first cause does one speak of superseding causality in the sense of the case law.
What practical case scenarios are relevant for assessment?
Typical case scenarios are found in the area of bodily injury and homicide offenses. For example, if two perpetrators independently inflict fatal injuries on a person: Perpetrator A shoots the victim, thus setting a fatal sequence in motion, but before the victim dies from the injury, perpetrator B kills the victim by electrocution. In such a situation, it must be examined whether B’s action completely superseded A’s chain of causation so that death was solely caused by the second act. In such cases, the first perpetrator is no longer attributed the result (death). The specific assessment always depends on medical circumstances, for instance, whether the initial act was still effective when death occurred.
What is the significance of superseding causality in civil law?
Superseding causality also plays a role in civil law, especially in claims for compensation. Under § 823 BGB, liability requires that the act was causal for the damage. If the chain of causation is completely interrupted by a subsequent event that alone is responsible for the damage, the liability of the original causer may be excluded. The principle of superseding causality is therefore also applied in civil law to restrict liability, for example in the case of competing causes of damage in medical or traffic liability law.
What are the requirements of case law for the existence of superseding causality?
Case law requires that the second cause completely displace the causal chain set in motion by the first and independently cause the result. This is often based on the medical context, for example, whether the victim would still have died from the first act at the time of death, or whether the second causal sequence alone brought about the result. What matters is that at the moment of the result, the first cause is no longer relevant. This is always a matter of individual consideration and requires a precise analysis of the sequence of events and often a medical expert opinion.
What effect do errors about the presence of superseding causality have on criminal liability?
If there is an error about whether superseding causality has actually occurred, this is referred to as a so-called “causality error”. If the perpetrator acts under the mistaken belief that his action is still causal for the occurrence of the result, although a second cause has in fact already superseded the course of causation, this may have implications for intentional or negligent offenses. Under German criminal law, such an error can affect the negligent commission of an offense, particularly regarding intent and culpability, which often leads to problems in practical legal application when drawing the lines between different scenarios.
