Cited by

In Smith, we held that “the defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle must be the ‘proximate cause’ of the victim’s death ‘without the intervention of an efficient independent force in which [the] defendant did not participate or which he could not reasonably have foreseen.’ ” ().

than it would have been when he started into the intersection.” As support for his claim that he is innocent because the victim caused the accident, Neumiller cites cases stating that the “[c]ontributory negligence of the victim may be considered only insofar as it tends to show that defendant was not negligent or that his acts did not constitute the proximate cause.”

to questions of causation in second-degree manslaughter cases.

Proximate Causation In a homicide prosecution, the state must establish that “the act of defendant must have been the proximate cause of the death of [the victim] without the intervention of an efficient independent force in which defendan t did not participate or which he could not reasonably have foreseen.” State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 517

State v. Schaub , 231 Minn. 512, 51 7

In this context, “causes” means that the defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle must be the “proximate cause” of the victim’s death “without the intervention of an efficient independent force in which defendant did not participate or which he could not reasonably have foreseen.” State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 517

State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 518 , Back, d at 869 n. 5.

See State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 519

(hojding that even if victim was negligent in dressing in black and drinking while hunting, it would not relieve defendant from liability); State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 519-20 , (finding that even if victim’s husband was negligent in.creating spark in gas-filled room, it did not relieve defendant from liability); (finding that even if victim had been driving negligently, it would not have relieved d

Thus, not only must Jawor-sky’s act have been a “proximate cause” of the death or injury, there must not have been the “intervention of an efficient independent force in which [Jaworsky] did not participate or which he could not reasonably have foreseen.” State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 517 , (discussing causation in context of involuntary manslaughter).

State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 519

See State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 517 , (to sustain manslaughter conviction, conduct must have been proximate cause of death).

In State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 517 , the court held a manslaughter conviction could be upheld if the defendant's act was the “proximate cause [of death] without the intervention of an efficient independent force in which defendant did not participate or which he could not reasonably have foreseen.” Cazin’s suicide was not

See State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512 , (tenant was prosecuted for second degree manslaughter in the death of his landlady occurring as a result of his attempt to commit suicide).

Crace, supra; State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512 , Bolsinger, supra; State v. Kline, 168 Minn. 263 , 209 N.W.

Crace acknowledges that in State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512, 520 , this court held that, “[c]ontributory negligence of the victim is not a defense in a criminal prosecution,” but asks this court to “reconsider” this rule.

Defendant relies upon State v. Schaub, 231 Minn. 512 , 44 N. W. (2d) 61, 62 , wherein the court held: “To sustain a conviction of manslaughter in the second degree, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant’s acts were a proximate cause of the victim’s death.” The word “proximate” is generally used to designate the legal cause of an injury.