In this article, the concept of cumulative causation in criminal law is examined comprehensively from both theoretical and practical perspectives. Causality, one of the fundamental pillars of criminal liability, gives rise to significant debates, particularly in multi-actor scenarios where multiple perpetrators contribute to a harmful outcome. In such contexts, where the unlawful conduct of more than one individual collectively leads to a result, classical causation theories often prove insufficient; this phenomenon is referred to as cumulative causation (or converging causation). The article explores the definition and theoretical foundations of this concept, its relationship with the conditio sine qua non theory and the theory of adequate causation, and evaluates it within the framework of judicial decisions and academic debates in both the German and Turkish legal systems.
In addition to the scientific dimension of the issue, the article provides analyses based on how the concept appears in practice, particularly by contextualizing the effects of cumulative causation in cases involving building collapses. Furthermore, topics such as the limits of cumulative causation, the degree of fault attributable to each perpetrator, and scenarios involving alternative causation are discussed, and proposals for resolving such complexities are presented.
This analysis focuses particularly on the causal relationship that emerges in situations where the actions or omissions of multiple actors lead to the collapse of a building. For instance, in a scenario where the collapse is attributable to both the contractor’s use of concrete with significantly low compressive strength and the engineer’s design that clearly violates relevant regulations and established technical and artistic standards, the contribution of multiple actors to the outcome and the causal connection of each act (even in the absence of a shared intent) is examined.
Causality alternative causality cumulative causality building collapse liability
This study examines the concepts of causality, particularly cumulative and alternative causation, within the field of criminal law. In offenses that result in harm, establishing a causal link between the perpetrator’s act and the outcome is fundamental. However, classical theories such as the conditio sine qua non (but-for test) often fall short in explaining situations where harm results from a combination of independent acts or omissions by multiple individuals. In such scenarios—commonly observed in building collapses, medical malpractice cases, or large-scale accidents—the law must determine how responsibility is to be allocated when no single action alone would have produced the result.
How should criminal liability be apportioned when several actions, none of which are sufficient on their own, collectively cause a harmful result? The issue becomes particularly significant in the aftermath of catastrophic events, such as the 1999 Marmara and 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes, which revealed systemic failures in construction, regulation and oversight. The study does not aim to offer engineering solutions, but instead analyzes, from a legal perspective, which actions constitute criminally relevant conduct and how such conduct should be attributed to specific actors. It further seeks to determine how liability can be assigned fairly and proportionately in such multi-actor events.
Traditional theories in criminal law—conditio sine qua non, adequate causation and objective imputation—have long been used to assess liability. While sufficient for linear, single-cause events, they prove inadequate in more complex scenarios involving overlapping or combined causes. In such cases, cumulative causation emerges as a critical theoretical tool.
In Turkish law, by contrast, cumulative causation lacks explicit theoretical grounding. Cases are often adjudicated using general principles of fault and causality, with little conceptual clarity. Judicial decisions rarely refer directly to the notion of cumulative causation, and the resulting legal uncertainty often leads to inconsistent or rushed judgments, particularly in high-profile cases with intense public scrutiny.
This study aims to address this gap in Turkish criminal law by examining how cumulative causation can better reflect complex realities in cases such as structural failures. To this end, both Turkish and German legal literature have been reviewed, and relevant court decisions have been analyzed.
The research is based on a qualitative and doctrinal legal methodology. It includes an examination of case law from the Turkish Court of Cassation, decisions from the German Federal Court (BGH), expert engineering reports, and scholarly publications. In some instances, references are made to construction-related legislation and administrative regulations.
The study finds that, in most cases involving building collapse, no single action was independently responsible for the outcome. Rather, it was the convergence of multiple negligent or unlawful behaviors—such as substandard materials, flawed engineering designs, inadequate inspection, and unauthorized modifications—that produced the disaster. These findings strongly support the relevance of cumulative causation in criminal liability assessments. Despite this, Turkish courts often fail to distinguish cumulative causation from alternative causation, contributing to uncertainty in the allocation of responsibility. This gap sometimes results in impunity or unjust punishment, depending on how the court interprets the chain of events.
For example, if a contractor uses poor-quality concrete and an engineer fails to comply with seismic design standards, neither act may be sufficient on its own to cause the building to collapse. However, taken together, they lead to the harmful result. In such cases, failure to apply a cumulative causation framework could obscure individual contributions to the shared harm.
The study concludes that cumulative causation should be more explicitly integrated into Turkish criminal law, especially in cases involving multiple contributing factors. Where harm arises from the combined actions of different actors, liability should be understood as the product of a chain of causally linked events rather than isolated acts. Legal evaluations should consider the contribution of each actor in light of the whole sequence of events.
A key limitation of the study is the lack of conceptual clarity in Turkish judicial decisions, which rarely articulate whether the case involves cumulative or alternative causation. This absence weakens the reasoning behind court judgments and makes it difficult to ensure consistent and fair outcomes across similar cases. There is also a shortage of academic work on the subject within Turkish legal literature, making comparative analysis more reliant on German jurisprudence and doctrine.
The study recommends that the concept of cumulative causation be formally recognized in Turkish legal doctrine and supported by judicial education. These reforms would not only enhance the fairness of criminal liability but also help prevent future disasters by improving risk awareness and accountability.
Ultimately, the proper recognition of cumulative causation can help ensure that criminal law keeps pace with the realities of modern, complex harm scenarios. A failure to do so risks unjust outcomes—where either innocent parties are punished or guilty actors escape liability due to analytical shortcomings in how causation is legally assessed.