Question

In your column about causality, you wrote that the case of “it begins with negligence and ends with an unavoidable accident” is parallel, in terms of the guardian’s legal responsibility, to the logical causal component rather than the physical one. But seemingly, even in the logical component, the cause is a sufficient condition for the appearance of the effect, whereas in the case of “it begins with negligence and ends with an unavoidable accident,” the negligence is only a necessary condition and not a sufficient one (since it was not supposed to be stolen in the forest—but had you not been negligent, the event would not have happened. So A is not the cause of B; rather, the opposite of A is what prevents B).