This study addresses one of the most challenging problems in contemporary tort law: the attribution of liability in cases where harm results not from direct physical causation, but from psychological influence that motivates or facilitates another person's conduct. Through systematic analysis, this work demonstrates that traditional causal theories—including direct and immediate causation, adequate causation, and the equivalence of conditions (sine qua non)—prove fundamentally inadequate when applied to cases involving "psychological causation."
Similarly, the conduct and public statements of government officials can negatively affect citizens' behavior, particularly during periods of crisis. When government officials publicly disregarded mask-wearing protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, this foreseeably encouraged non-compliance among the general population. Whether such individuals can be held civilly liable for the resulting harm presents a complex problem requiring careful doctrinal analysis.
Equally significant is the question of liability when a group member initiates acts of vandalism or collective violence, subsequently followed by other members of an organized crowd or political group. This raises the fundamental question of whether the person who precipitates a disturbance can be held responsible for damage suffered by third parties, even when the specific perpetrator of a particular injury remains unidentified. Consider, for example, a supporter who initiates an altercation between opposing fans or who physically or verbally assaults members of an organized group, thereby triggering widespread confusion and resulting in harm to bystanders.
Particular problems also arise when the consequent damage occurs because the second party, influenced by the conduct of the first agent, deliberately harms themselves or their interests. There are many examples of self-destructive reactions by the injured party after the initial harmful event, such as in cases of revenge porn, bullying, and environmental disasters like Brumadinho and Fukushima. Thus, the victim may, under the impact of the initial harm, prematurely stop their business activities, commit suicide, or refuse necessary treatment measures, such as a blood transfusion, for religious reasons. These scenarios challenge traditional causation theories by introducing psychological mediation between the defendant's conduct and the ultimate harm.
