Legal Causation vs Factual Causation

Legal causation and factual causation are two distinct elements of the principle of causation, which is a fundamental concept in law that establishes a causal connection between the defendant's actions or omissions and the harm or damage caused to the victim.

Factual causation is concerned with establishing whether the defendant's actions or omissions were a factual cause of the harm or damage suffered by the victim. It is determined by applying the but-for test, which asks whether the harm or damage would have occurred but for the defendant's actions. If the answer is no, then the defendant's actions can be said to be a factual cause of the harm or damage, and he can be held liable.

Legal causation is concerned with establishing whether the defendant's actions or omissions were a legal cause of the harm or damage suffered by the victim. It requires that the harm or damage must result from a culpable act or omission on the part of the defendant, and that the defendant's actions were not too remote and were more than a minimal cause of the harm or damage suffered by the victim.

In other words, factual causation is concerned with establishing a causal link between the defendant's actions and the harm or damage suffered by the victim, while legal causation is concerned with establishing whether the defendant's actions were sufficiently culpable and foreseeable to make him legally responsible for the harm or damage suffered by the victim.

In summary, both factual and legal causation are crucial in establishing liability in tort and criminal law. Factual causation establishes the direct, empirical link between the defendant’s conduct and the harm, using the but-for test. Legal causation, or proximate cause, ensures that it is fair and just to hold the defendant responsible, considering foreseeability and intervening factors.