Proving Causation: Probability versus Belief

Perspectives On Causation

Volumn , Issue , 2011, Pages 195-220

  Wright, Richard W ^a  

^a CHICAGO KENT COLLEGE OF LAW   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85194880480     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (54)

1. RW Wright, ‘Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts [Pruning] (1988) 73 Iowa Law Review 1001, 1044-67
2. RW Wright, ‘Liability for Possible Wrongs: Causation, Statistical Probability, and the Burden of Proof’ [Possible Wrongs] (2008) 41 Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 1295
3. RW Wright, ‘Proving Facts: Belief versus Probability’ [Proving Facts] in H Koziol and BC Steininger (eds), European Tort Law 2008 (Vienna, Springer-Verlag, 2009) 79.
4. FHS Bridge, The Council of Europe French-English Legal Dictionary (Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 1998) 173.
5. KM Clermont and E Sherwin, ‘A Comparative View of Standards of Proof’ (2002) 50 American Journal of Comparative Law 243, 245-46, 250, 256, 271
6. D Demougin and C Fluet, ‘Preponderance of Evidence’ (2006) 50 European Economic Review 963, 964
7. C Engel, ‘Preponderance of the Evidence versus Intime Conviction: A Behavioral Perspective on a Conflict Between American and Continental European Law’ (2009) 33 Vermont Law Review 435
8. J Kokott, The Burden of Proof in Comparative and International Human Rights Law (Dordrecht, Kluwer Law International, 1998) 18-19
9. H Nagel, ‘Evidence, Law of’ in 7 Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia, 15th edn (Chicago, Encyclopadia Britannica, 1974) 1a, 2b
10. R Zőller, Zivilprozessordnung (Cologne, Verlag Dr Otto Schmidt, 1999) (‘Less than the conviction of truth is not sufficient for a proof… Standards that are based on a measure of likelihood do not find any support in the law.’).
11. E Adeney, ‘The Challenge of Medical Uncertainty: Factual Causation in Anglo-Australian Toxic Tort Litigation’ (1993) Monash University Law Review 23, 57, 59–62
12. M Taruffo, ‘Rethinking the Standards of Proof ’ (2003) 51 American Journal of Comparative Law 659, 663–64, 667–71.
13. National Research Council, Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward (Washington DC, National Academies Press, 2009).
14. R Vouin, ‘The Exclusionary Rule: France’ (1961) 52 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 275.
15. M Foucault, Abnormal: Lectures at the Collège de France 1974-1975 (G Burchell transl) (New York, Picador, 2003) 8-11.
16. PL Murray and R Stürner, German Civil Justice (Durham, Carolina Academic Press, 2004) 310-11
17. P Gottwald, ‘Fact Finding: A German Perspective’ in DL Carey Miller and PR Beaumont (eds), The Option of Litigating in Europe (London, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1993) 67, 77.
18. CJM Safferling, ‘Terror and Law-Is the German Legal System able to deal with Terrorism?-The Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) decision in the case against El Motassadeq’ (2004) 5 German Law Journal 515, 520.
19. SL Goren, The Code of Civil Procedure Rules of the Federal Republic of Germany of January 30, 1877 and the Introductory Act for the Code of Civil Procedure Rules of January 30, 1877 (Littleton, Fred B Rothman & Co, 1990) 73
20. EH Devitt et al, 3 Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (Civil), 4th edn (St Paul, West Publishing Co, 1987) s 72.01 at 32 (emphasis added)
21. State Bar of Nevada, Nevada Pattern Jury Instructions-Civil (Charlottesville, Michie, 1986) s 3.00.1.
22. Illinois Supreme Court Committee on Pattern Jury Instructions in Civil Cases, Illinois Pattern Jury Instructions: Civil (St Paul, West Publishing Co, 2006) s 21.01 (‘more probably true than not true’)
23. LB Sand et al, 4 Modern Federal Jury Instructions (Newark, LexisNexis, 2007).
24. CMA McCauliff, ‘Burdens of Proof: Degrees of Belief, Quanta of Evidence, or Constitutional Guarantees?’ (1982) 35 Vanderbilt Law Review 1293, 1332
25. RJ Simon and L Mahan, ‘Quantifying Burdens of Proof: A View from the Bench, the Jury, and the Classroom’ (1971) 5 Law and Society Review 319, 329.
26. DK Kagehiro and WC Stanton, ‘Legal vs. Quantified Definitions of Standards of Proof’ (1985) 9 Law and Human Behavior 159, 164, 169.
27. GL Wells, ‘Naked Statistical Evidence of Liability: Is Subjective Probability Enough?’ (1992) 62 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 739.
28. D Ball, ‘Making Preponderance Work’ (March 2008) Trial 38-40.
29. RW Wright, ‘The NESS Account of Natural Causation: A Response to Criticisms’, chapter 14 in this volume, III.G.
30. ZL Zile, ‘Vosburg v Putney: A Centennial Story’ 1992 Wisconsin Law Review 877, 910-14, 933-42, 956-64.
31. AB Hill, ‘The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?’ in (1965) 58 Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 295
32. ‘Symposium on Legal and Scientific Perspectives on Causation in Mass Tort Litigation’ (1991) 1 Courts, Health Science & the Law pt 3.
33. KJ Rothman, S Greenland, and TL Lash, Modern Epidemiology, 3rd edn (Philadelphia, Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins, 2008) 62-64
34. S Greenland and J Robins, ‘Epidemiology, Justice, and the Probability of Causation’ (2000) 40 Jurimetrics 321, 326-27.
35. R Goldberg, ‘The Contraceptive Pill, Negligence and Causation: Views on Vadera v. Shaw’ (2000) 8 Medical Law Review 316, 331-35.
36. P Tillers, ‘If wishes were horses: discursive comments on attempts to prevent individuals from being unfairly burdened by their reference classes’ (2005) 4 Law, Probability and Risk 33.
37. J Thomson, ‘Liability and Individualized Evidence’ (Summer 1986) 49 Law and Contemporary Problems 199, 206 and fn 14.
38. RJ Allen, ‘The Nature of Juridical Proof’ (1991) 13 Cardozo Law Review 373
39. CJ Miller and RS Goldberg, Product Liability, 2nd edn (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2004) paras 17.10 and 17.11.
40. N Pennington and R Hastie, ‘A Cognitive Theory of Juror Decision Making: The Story Model’ (1991) 13 Cardozo Law Review 519
41. RJ Rhee, ‘Probability, policy and the problem of reference class’ (2007) 11 International Journal of Evidence and Proof 286.
42. MD Green, ‘The Future of Proportional Liability: The Lessons of Toxic Substances Causation’ in MS Madden (ed), Exploring Tort Law (New York, Cambridge University Press, 2005) 352, 363.
43. LJ Cohen, The Probable and the Provable (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1977) 75.
44. C van Dam, European Tort Law (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006) 287-88
45. W van Gerven, J Lever and P Larouche, Cases, Materials and Text on National, Supranational and International Tort Law (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2000) s 4.4.3
46. MA Geistfeld, ‘The Doctrinal Unity of Alternative Liability and Market Share Liability’ (2006) 155 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 447, 464-65, 466, 469.
47. AM Levine, ‘“Gilding the Lilly”: A DES Update’ (December 1984) 20 Trial 18, 19-20.
48. Ewoud Hondius, ‘A Dutch DES Case-Pharmaceutical Producers Jointly and Severally Liable’ (1994) 2 European Review of Private Law 409
49. R Goldberg, Causation and Risk in the Law of Torts: Scientific Evidence and Medicinal Product Liability (Oxford, Hart Publishing, 1999) 75-80.
50. F Stella, ‘Criminal omissions, causality, probability, counterfactuals: Medical-surgical activity’ (http://works. bepress.com/richard_wright/35/) 1-2
51. F Stella of ‘Causalità omissiva, probabilità, giudizi controfat­tuali: l’attività medico-chirurgica’ in F Stella, Il Giudice Corpuscolariano. La Cultura delle Prove (2005) 201-43
52. WL Prosser et al, Prosser and Keeton on Torts, 5th edn (St Paul, West Publishing Co, 1984) s 39 at 243-44 and fn 20
53. DB Dobbs, The Law of Torts (St Paul, West Publishing Co, 2000) s 154 at 372.
54. KS Broun et al (eds), 1 McCormick on Evidence, 6th edn (St Paul, West Publishing Co, 2006) ss 186, 188, 195.