A comparison of the causation principle in tort law and criminal law

Abstract

This article aimed to study and propose guidance regarding the principal connection between act and result considering the lack of clarification in term of the principal connection between act and result in Civil and Commercial code, and the criminal law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court sentences have not yet been clarified regarding the referenced theory. Moreover, most of the lowers have been using the theories and the codes from criminal principle whereas there are differences in principal connection between act and result in the Civil and Commercial code. Thus, this article focused on the comparison of the causation principle in tort law and criminal law to provide the clarification in trials.
Theory of equivalence of courses or the condition theory has been used as a code in the comparison of the causation principle in tort law and criminal law after which the theory of adequate causation has been used as an exception. The theory of adequate causation will be used in the case of having the interference in between the cause and the result. In other words, the consideration would base on the result of each case whether the result has been formulated by the one uninterrupted cause or there are the interrupted causes. Supposing that the result is caused of the one uninterrupted cause, the theory of equivalence of courses or the condition theory will be used in the trial. On another hand, if there are interferences in the discontinued act, the theory of adequate causation will be used to support the trial inclusively.
However, the theory of adequate causation as the offender must receive more penalty as it stated in article 63 of the criminal law where as it has not been stated on the tort law. The use of adequate causation theory on criminal law is therefore differ from tort law.