[piker]

(1) According to the article, disabling the wireless camera itself may be a crime in the US. If so, there are a host of ways the participant could face criminal liability under the described facts.

(2) Civil liability does require, generally, causation--cause-in-fact and proximate cause. The cause-in-fact test is a simple "but-for" assessment: but-for our guy disabling the wireless, would the robbery have happened? In this case, yes, in the absence of our guy disabling the wireless, the bad guy would have still robbed the house. Disabling the wireless did not cause the robbery, the criminal was acting independent and without knowledge of the wireless camera's being disabled. Proximate cause is a more complicated legal standard, but since cause-in-fact is missing here, our guy isn't liable, and your second point is probably incorrect.

[eyeJam]

Disabling the cameras would make it much harder to identify and catch the thief and therefore recover the stolen property. And so, on a balance of probabilities, 'but for' disabling the cameras the damage (loss of property) would not have occurred.

I see what you're saying, but there's a strong argument to be made for finding the camera-disabling guest negligent. If I was advising a client I would never state things as matter-of-factly as you did, but maybe its okay in the court of HN.

[piker]

And "but-for" the police's inability to catch the bad guy, the plaintiff would have recovered his stolen goods as well, right? And "but-for" the Chief hiring the detective in charge of the case, the plaintiff would have been more likely to recover his property. And on and on. He should sue them all as well.

A lawyer who doesn't quite yet understand factual causation or the limitations imposed by proximate cause would do well to hedge an answer like this with a client. A knowledgeable lawyer, however, would win this on SJ.

[edits: typos]