causation
noun · Kausalität
Kausalität for causation, but German law runs it through more filters than the English but-for and remoteness pair. The factual test is the Äquivalenztheorie, conditio sine qua non, then the Adäquanztheorie strips out wholly atypical courses, and the Schutzzweck der Norm asks whether the harm is one the breached rule was meant to prevent. German law also splits the enquiry, haftungsbegründende Kausalität to the injury, haftungsausfüllende to the loss.
Which translation, when
Why
Causation translates to Kausalität, and the German enquiry is built in more steps than the English factual-plus-legal pair. It begins with the Äquivalenztheorie, the conditio sine qua non, every condition that cannot be removed without the harm falling away counts, a deliberately broad net. Because that net is too wide, two filters narrow it, the Adäquanztheorie asks whether the condition was generally apt to produce a harm of this kind, cutting out wholly atypical and improbable courses, and the Schutzzwecklehre, the Schutzzweck der Norm, asks whether the harm is one the breached rule or duty existed to prevent, so damage of a kind outside the norm’s protective purpose is not attributed even though it was caused. German doctrine also divides the question in two, haftungsbegründende Kausalität links the conduct to the initial Rechtsgutsverletzung and belongs to liability, haftungsausfüllende Kausalität links that violation to the further loss and belongs to damages, § 249 BGB, and the two carry different standards of proof, § 286 against § 287 ZPO. So Kausalität is the right word, but a translation that stops there loses the Adäquanz and Schutzzweck filters and the two-stage split that decide what a German court will actually attribute.
Typical mistakes
- German causation is not exhausted by the but-for test, the Äquivalenztheorie is only the start, the Adäquanztheorie and the Schutzzweck der Norm then limit attribution, so a causation argument that stops at sine qua non overstates what is recoverable.
- The enquiry splits, haftungsbegründende Kausalität to the injury and haftungsausfüllende to the loss, § 249 BGB, carrying different proof standards, § 286 and § 287 ZPO, a division the single English word does not show.
- The Schutzzweck der Norm can cut off a caused harm that falls outside the rule’s protective purpose, so proving factual causation does not settle attribution.
What matters
Causation arguments in an injury claim need more than the but-for link: German law adds the Adäquanztheorie and the Schutzzweck der Norm, and splits haftungsbegründende from haftungsausfüllende Kausalität with different proof standards, § 286 and § 287 ZPO. The submission that rests on sine qua non alone has skipped the filters that decide whether a German court attributes the loss.
What the machine misses
Causation comes back as Kausalität in machine output, correctly, but the word alone carries none of the German machinery, the Äquivalenztheorie sets a broad sine qua non net that the Adäquanztheorie and the Schutzzweck der Norm then narrow, and the enquiry splits into haftungsbegründende and haftungsausfüllende Kausalität with different proof standards, § 286 and § 287 ZPO. So a translated causation argument that stops at the but-for link reads as complete when a German court still asks whether the course was adequate and within the norm’s purpose before it attributes the loss.
Examples
| the chain of causation | die Kausalkette |
| but-for causation | die Äquivalenzkausalität |
| the protective purpose of the norm | der Schutzzweck der Norm |
| an intervening cause | eine unterbrechende Ursache |
More notes on these sections
indemnity Freistellung
misrepresentation arglistige Täuschung
damages Schadensersatz