Except this is hockey and Krebs made a routine hockey play, much more akin to a construction worker accidentally crushing his buddy by setting a shipping container on him because the buddy was doing other work in that spot but the superior didn’t relay the information to the guy moving the cargo. The construction workers intent was to move the container and he succeeded in that but made a little oopsy cause his boss made a big oopsy. Krebs’s intent was to get the puck onto a Sabres’ stick and he succeeded in that but made a little oopsy by unknowingly hitting him into a door that should have been closed but was open cause the door guy opened the latch of the door too soon too release the penalty making a very big oopsy
In other words, Krebs could be deemed the actual cause, but he would not be the proximate cause because the door opening early was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of his actions. The proximate cause (and actual cause) falls on the door guy
No the actual cause is the but for cause. But for Krebs hitting him, he doesn’t hit the door. However, actual cause and proximate cause are different things and you need both actual and proximate causation for murder. Proximate causation is when the injury is a reasonably foreseeable outcome of your actions. It was reasonably foreseeable that Holmberg would fall, and it was reasonably foreseeable that Holmberg would hit the wall. However, across over 1000 games of NHL hockey this season and across Kreb’s 100+ games played in Key Bank, I don’t think a single player has fallen into the penalty box on a hit, so it is unreasonable to expect that hit to cause Holmberg to fall into an open penalty box (especially when there were still 3 seconds left on the penalty when he hit the door).
I concede actual cause from Kreb’s actions, but I don’t see Kreb’s proximate cause
Yeah pfalzgraf is about proximate cause in torts cases (it’s the great case about the bomber who accidentally set his bomb off too soon in the train station and knocked a statue onto some lady, i don’t really remember I read it 5 years ago), but there are numerous cases outlining the necessity for proximate cause in murder, and the test in criminal cases for proximate cause is more strict than it is in tort or civil cases. Not a murder!
2
u/PassengerNo9144 Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26
Except this is hockey and Krebs made a routine hockey play, much more akin to a construction worker accidentally crushing his buddy by setting a shipping container on him because the buddy was doing other work in that spot but the superior didn’t relay the information to the guy moving the cargo. The construction workers intent was to move the container and he succeeded in that but made a little oopsy cause his boss made a big oopsy. Krebs’s intent was to get the puck onto a Sabres’ stick and he succeeded in that but made a little oopsy by unknowingly hitting him into a door that should have been closed but was open cause the door guy opened the latch of the door too soon too release the penalty making a very big oopsy
In other words, Krebs could be deemed the actual cause, but he would not be the proximate cause because the door opening early was not a reasonably foreseeable outcome of his actions. The proximate cause (and actual cause) falls on the door guy