| Abstract [eng] |
This work reviews the philosophical concepts of causal relation and the diversity of its determination, aiming to highlight the specific features of causal relation across various scientific disciplines, which have shaped the theoretical foundations of modern concepts of causal relation. It is established that in general legal theory, the analysis of causal relation – considered both a factual and legal phenomenon – requires an interdisciplinary approach. It is examined that the content of causal relation, as an element of the objective side of a criminal offence, is revealed based on the methodology for determining causal relation developed in criminal law doctrine, the second stage of which unjustifiably equates causal relation with the intellectual element of guilt. Therefore, the key role should be assigned to the assessment of the regularity of the occurrence of consequences by an omniscient observer. It is discussed that the doctrinal methodology for determining causal relation is not sufficiently developed to consistently resolve situations where multiple conditions contribute to the occurrence of consequences. Thus, a significant part of the work is devoted to the analysis of the specific features of determining causal relation in separate categories of criminal cases as developed in Lithuanian court practice. It is clarified that the regularity of the occurrence of consequences in murder cases is often examined by assessing the impact of intervening factors in the chain of causal relation on the victim’s death. It is emphasized that in cases concerning violation of requirements of safety and health protection at work, the focus lies solely on identifying the primary cause of the negative consequences, which excludes the conduct of the employee when it is influenced by violations of safety and health protection requirements by the employer or their authorized representative. It is analyzed that in road traffic accident cases, the cause of the occurrence of consequences is determined in accordance with the objective avoidability rule, which is not always applied when assessing the significance of each participant’s conduct in the occurrence of consequences, and the principle of criminal offence exclusion. The criterion of a foreseeable obstacle is more rarely used to reveal the regularity of the occurrence of consequences. |
