CAUSALITY AND MILLS METHOD

Necessary causes: If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies the presence of x. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur. Example Burning of skin implies presence of fire. But fire always does not cause burns to skin. It can be used for other purposes as well. Here burning of skin is the effect and presence of fire is the cause.

Sufficient causes: If x is a sufficient cause of y, then the presence of x necessarily implies the presence of y. However, another cause z may alternatively cause y. Thus the presence of y does not imply the presence of x. Presence of apples implies presence of apple tree. However in a place where the climatic conditions are not favourable for apple to be cultivated apple may be present because of import from other places. Here presence of apple is the effect that is necessarily caused by the presence of apple tree. But there can be other causes alternatively, which in this case is import, that effects the presence of apple. MILLS FIVE METHODS 1. Method of Agreement This is a systematic effort to find a single cause that is common to several occurrences for thepurpose of identifying that factor as the common cause of phenomenon present in the occurrences. This gives rise to Sufficient Conditions and the conclusion is probable because  Some conditions might have been overlooked.  If the cause was thought of to be Necessary, then it does not assert that the cause would every time produce the same effect. 2. Method of Difference This is a systematic effort to find a single factor that is present in occurrence in which the phenomenon in question is present, and absent from an occurrence in which the phenomenon is absent.
1

Even if for some occurrence the phenomenon in question directly applies, the conclusion yielded is only probable. The mere fact that two occurrences occupy different positions in space, that one is closer to the wall than the other, amounts to a difference. Such differences might be insignificant, but therein lies the possibility of error. This gives rise to only Sufficient Conditions. 3. Joint Method of Agreement and Disagreement This is a systematic effort to identify a single condition that is present in two or more occurrences in which the phenomenon in question is present and that is absent from two or more occurrences in which the phenomenon is absent, but never present when the phenomenon is absent and never absent if the phenomenon is present. Moreover the conclusion yielded by this method is only probable because some necessary conditions might have been overlooked. This method gives rise to only Sufficient Conditions. 4. Method of Residues This is a systematic effort to identify the causal connection between two conditions by separating from a group of causally connected conditions and phenomena those strands of causal connection that are already known, leaving the required causal connection as the residue. A B C Causes X Y Z Such that A Causes X B Causes Y It implies C causes Z The conclusion obtained here is also probable. 5. Method of Concomitant Variation This is a systematic effort to identify a causal connection between two conditions by matching variations in one condition with variations in another. There can be two formulation of this method  Increases are matched with increases and decreases are matched with decreases.  Increases are matched with decreases and decreases are matched with increases.

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab Let us use causation LEGALLY....

Facts of the Case  Virsa Singh accused for murdering Khem Singh has been sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of IPC.  He was charged under five other sections 302/ 149/, 324/ 149, 323/ 149.  The appellant was convicted by the trial court and the High Court upheld this decision.  There was only one wound to Khem Singh and courts agreed that it was caused by Virsa Singh.  DOCTORS POST-MORTEM REPORT The report described about the structure of the injury caused and also the parts affected due to this injury. The doctor tried to establish a Cause and Effect relationship by saying that the structure of wound Res Ipsa Loquitor signifies the occurrence of death. Thus there was a causal relation between the injury caused and death of Khem Singh which law took into consideration.

Moreover in the very topic of Law of Torts when we study negligence then we always try to establish a Cause and Effect Relationship. We get into the question whether the said injury or violation of right has been caused by the negligence. A baby has brain damage: it has recently been vaccinated. If there is a claim for compensation, it will always be necessary to establish(on scientific evidence) that the vaccine caused the damage.

Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Sukumar Mukherjee and Others

Facts  Kunal Saha and Anuradha were a settled couple in USA  On 24th March 1998, they arrived Calcutta, India wherein Anuradha developed fever and skin rashes.  On 26th April, Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee, Respondent No. 1 herein attended and examined Anuradha at her parental residence on a professional call. Dr. Mukherjee assured the patient and her husband of a quick recovery and advised her to take rest but did not prescribe her any specific medicine.  After two weeks the same problem arose but this time more aggressively and she was shifted to AMRI under the supervision of the same doctor Mukherjee.  Dr. Halder found that she had been suffering from Erithima plus blisters. Her condition, however, continued to deteriorate further. Dr. Abani Roy Chowdhury, Consultant, Respondent No. 3 was also consulted on 12th May, 1998.
3

 On or about 17th May, 1998, Anuradha was shifted to Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai as her condition further deteriorated severely. She breathed her last on 28th May, 1998. On the basis of above facts when the case was contended in the trial court The Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai was not responsible for causing the death of Anuradha. The above statement was used by the judges of trial court in deciding the case which clearly signifies that the court tried to establish a cause and effect relationship between the allegations held by the plaintiff and the negligence that he accused on the doctor. In the same case the statement v of the High Court judgement read as under In absence of the post-mortem examination with regard to the cause of death of Anuradha, it must be held that the death was a natural one. The death certificate issued by the Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai was not a conclusive proof of the cause of death but was only a tentative one. It was silent about the antecedent cause or other significant conditions contributing to the death. The death certificate could not rule out the possibility of accidental, suicidal or homicidal cause of death. The doctor who issued the death certificate was not examined. Thus immediate cause of death vis-a-vis the link thereof with the treatment at Kolkata and that too specially at the hands of Respondents 1 to 3 was not proved. The High Court as well tried to establish a causal relation and then gave the judgement that the death was normal.

Nagendra Pal v. State of U.P.

Both the parties reside in the same village. They had a dispute over the enjoyment of a common passage. On the day prior to the occurrence i.e. on 29-4-1974 at 9.00 a.m. Virendra Pal Singh and Phulendra Pal Singh beat Brij Pal Singh uncle of Brij Raj Singh for the latter obstructing the construction of the house of the accused on the ground that they have encroached upon the common passage. In respect of this incident, a first information report was lodged by the victim Brij Pal Singh at the police station. On the following day i.e. 30-7-74 at about 6.00 p.m. the appellant and his two brothers standing at the door started abusing and threatened that if the prosecution party proceeded further in pursuance of the first information report lodged on the previous day they all would be killed. When Brij Raj Singh took strong objection to their conduct he was beaten with lathis by the two brothers of the appellant. By that time the prosecution party numbering about 8 reached the scene place wielding their lathis. In judgement with reference to the above facts, the court in its judgement stated Whoever had caused the injuries to the appellant and his brothers might have been very close to the victims and caused the injuries.

As pointed out by the defence counsel the appellant did not use his gun even at the time when he and his brothers were attacked and caused with numerous and extensive injuries but resorted to firing only as a last resort when the prosecution party persisted in entering into the house by scaling over the wall of the house and threatened they would not allow the appellant and Phulendra Pal Singh to remain alive and declared that they have already put an end to the life of Virendra Pal Singh. In both the arguments stated by the jurists, it is quite clear that they used the cause and effect relationship to come to the conclusion and decide the case allowing the appeal thereof.