Liability for Possible Wrongs: Causation, Statistical Probability and the Burden of Proof, in Symposium, The Frontiers of Tort Law (original) (raw)

2008, Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Abstract

sparkles

AI

The paper discusses the evolving landscape of tort law regarding liability in cases where causation is difficult to prove. It critiques the concept of treating increased risk as causation and argues against defining risk exposure as a legally cognizable injury. The author advocates for a principled modification of evidentiary rules to better serve justice in tort cases, particularly in situations where proving causation is challenging.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (37)

  1. E.g., Accident Comp. Corp. v. Ambros, [2008] N.Z.L.R. 340 (C.A.);
  2. A.C. 572 (appeal taken from Eng.) (U.K.);
  3. Gregg v. Scott, [2005] UKHL 2, [2005]
  4. A.C. 176 (U.K.);
  5. LARA KHOURY, UNCERTAIN CAUSATION IN MEDICAL LIABILITY 13-16 (2006);
  6. Vaughan Black & David Cheifetz, Through the Looking Glass Darkly: Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 45 ALTA. L. REV. 241, 241 (2007);
  7. Ewoud Hondius, A Dutch DES Case: Pharmaceutical Producers Jointly and Severally Liable, 2 EUR. REV. PRIVATE L. 409, 409 (1994);
  8. Federico Stella, Causation in Products Liability and Exposure to Toxic Substances: A European View, in EXPLORING TORT LAW 403, 405-08, 411-15 (M. Stuart Madden ed., 2005).
  9. See Stella, supra note 1, at 405-08, 411-15; Richard W. Wright, Actual Causation vs. Probabilistic Linkage: The Bane of Economic Analysis, 14 J. LEGAL STUD. 435, 439 (1985) [hereinafter Wright, Probabilistic Linkage];
  10. Richard W. Wright, Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof-Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifving the Concepts, 73 IOWA L. REV. 1001, 1042-67 (1988) [hereinafter Wright, Bramble Bush].
  11. Wright, Bramble Bush, supra note 2, at 1067-77; Richard W. Wright, Causation in Tort Law, 73 CAL. L. REV. 1735, 1813-21 (1985) [hereinafter Wright, Causation]. 13. 607 P.2d 924 (Cal. 1980).
  12. 539 N.E.2d 1069 (N.Y. 1989).
  13. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL HARM § 28(b) cmt. o & cmt. o, reporters' note (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005); see infra Part V. 16. See infra Part II.
  14. RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL HARM § 28(b) & cmt. e (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005);
  15. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 433B(3) (1965). 21. 199 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1948).
  16. E.g., Howard v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 160 F.3d 358, 359-60 (7th Cir. 1998); Smith v. Rapid Transit, Inc., 58 N.E.2d 754, 755 (Mass. 1945);
  17. Wright, Bramble Bush, supra note 2, at 1050 n.27 1. In the Howard case and again in United States v. Veysey, 334 F.3d 600, 605 (7th Cir. 2003), quoted by Geistfeld, supra note 10, at 467 n.55, Judge Posner repeats the mathematical probabilists' "missing evidence" argument to try to explain the courts' rejection of naked statistics. The flaws in that argument are discussed in Wright, Bramble Bush, supra note 2, at 1055-56.
  18. E.g., RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL HARM § 28 cmt. g (Proposed Final Draft No. 1, 2005).
  19. See, e.g., Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co., 560 N.E.2d 324, 334 (Il. 1990);
  20. WEINRIB, supra note 4, at 154-55 & n.20; Goldberg & Zipursky, supra note 9, at 1413-14, 1416 n.16; Ripstein & Zipursky, supra note 6, at 215-16, 228, 238.
  21. Id. at 480, 482, 490-92 & n. 122. 125. Id. at 480-83, 492. 126. Id. at 480-83.
  22. Id. at 483-84.
  23. Sindell v. Abbott Labs., 607 P.2d 924, 937 (Cal. 1980).
  24. See Aaron M. Levine, "Gilding the Lilly": A DES Update, 20 TRIAL, Dec. 1984, at 18, 19-20.
  25. Sindell, 607 P.2d at 931 (emphasis added); see id. at 936-37. 132. 751 P.2d215 (Or. 1988).
  26. Id. at 216 n.1. 134. Id. at 222. 135. Id.; see supra note 64. 136. 154 P.2d 687 (Cal. 1944).
  27. Id. at 688, 690.
  28. Id. at 689 (quoting 9 JOHN HENRY WIGMORE, TREATISE ON THE ANGLO-AMERICAN SYSTEM OF EVIDENCE IN TRIALS AT COMMON LAW § 2309, at 382 (3d ed. 1940)).
  29. Id. at 690-91. 140. See id. at 688.
  30. Geistfeld, supra note 10, at 473.
  31. See supra text accompanying notes 42-44. Geistfeld sets aside the Ybarra court's focus on the "conspiracy of silence" in medical practice and the court's assumption that someone among the defendants must have known what happened, since those factors did not exist in Summers and he is seeking to analogize Ybarra to Summers. Geistfeld, supra note 10, at 473.
  32. PORAT & STEIN, supra note 43, at 68-69; see DOBBS, supra note 77, § 249.
  33. Wright, Causation, supra note 3, at 1821 (footnote omitted).
  34. Id. at 1821 n.361.
  35. See, e.g., Kolakowski v. Voris, 415 N.E.2d 397, 401 (Il. 1980); DOBBS, supra note 77, § 249, at 652; PORAT & STEIN, supra note 43, at 69.
  36. See, e.g., Senn v. Merrell-Dow Pharm., Inc., 751 P.2d 215, 222-23 (Or. 1988) (discussed supra note 64 and text accompanying notes 132-135. Smith v. Eli Lilly & Co., 560 N.E.2d 324, 340-41 (Ill. 1990);
  37. Goldberg & Zipursky, supra note 9, at 1414-15; Ripstein & Zipursky, supra note 6, at 241-44.