In the article presents the literature review some of controversial issues causal analysis in the present practice of forensic examination. Proposed a systematic approach as innovative logic- philosophical instrument improvement of orthodox causal analysis.The solution of many practical problems and research expert forensic natural connections depends on the choice of logical and philosophical model of causality. Descriptive and explanatory function of scientific theories led to historically there are two main types of models of causality in philosophy, general pathology and forensics: a) evolutionary model based on the temporal side deterministic relations structural models, based on interaction as a source of reason in the PNZ. The choice of a model role in determining causality traumatic process starting determinants: the causes, conditions, drive, states.Orthodox causal modeling, as proved by scientists, does not disclose in reality the determination of all parties, some of which are significant for forensic examination. The design of the study was proving the feasibility of conceptual positions systematic approach to causal explanation and analysis of forensic natural connections. The object of the study were forensic causal relationships, assess which forensic offered in special literature, regulations, opinions of forensic examinations.Causal opinions in the conclusions of forensic experts on forensic determinations demonstrate variability, reflecting longstanding and controversial debate on causality, both in scientific literature and in normative forensic documents. The existing antagonism explanations of causal determination is subjective and objective conditions.Orthodox causal analysis demonstrates some restrictions cognitive plan, for example:1. Subjective declaration uneven activity objects - media complex causal determinants - among which one of the most active carrier define terms and give causal status.In anthropomorphic approach the status of the reasons attributed to more active material object, or process, but interaction time is not taken into account. As a result of the retrospective simulation forensic expert finds superaddityvnist consequences (systemic effect emergence), but can not explain the discrepancy between the appearance quality system and starting objects generated based purely logical causality analysis tools2. Forensic expert, simulating determination related events often faced with the ambiguity of the relationship between cause and effect, for example, when various reasons compete in the generation of the same effect. Structural strictly causality model itself can not provide financial justification for this phenomenon. 3. PNZ argument often expresses the simplified scheme didactic or constituent of proof, since the system does not specify the location, direction and intensity of action determinants full causes injury. For example, the following contradictory indication of current “Rules forensic determination of the severity of injuries,” approved by MHP Ukraine Order № 6 from 17.01.1995. Point. 4.7. “Rules” experts proposed installing PNZ not ignore extraneous circumstances and individual characteristics of the organism and considered the status of the victim without conditions as the state of the abstract healthy person. This assumption characterizes monokauzalizm concept, which was subject to reasonable criticism in the XIX century.Orthodox causal analysis determinations goes in logical integration of necessary and sufficient conditions that form a single complex causal or full reason determinants that generate and accurately specifies the result. However, research is limited purely a comprehensive approach, often giving one-sided assessment of factors grouped as discourse mechanism does not contribute to the transformation of interacting material objects and therefore difficult defining the role of certain determinants, does not reveal the nature of the causal product of new quality. Leading scientists in a number of studies have concluded the impossibility to explain by means of purely causal analysis of certain issues of quality relationships between cause and effect. In forensics, specified gap of scientific knowledge creates preconditions incorrect judgments that can generate conflicting expert opinions. At this time, the existence of general systems theory and synergetic innovation is the integration of comprehensive and systematic approach. In such a methodological symbiosis, comprehensive approach represents one of the analytical steps, which conducted an imaginary dissection of the object (process) apart; identify connections and relationships between parts that identifies the structure of the whole. Therefore, systematic analysis of forensic deterministic relations is a logical continuation of integration and productive, innovative organization at the present level of practice forensic expert in the study of the determination.From the above, the idea of standardized estimates bodily injuries recognized forensic “Rules” require further scientific justification on the basis of modern logic and philosophical knowledge by using a systematic approach.CONCLUSIONS1. Analysis of logical modeling retrospective causation suggests perspective feasibility association logical tools of causal analysis determinations with the methods systematic approach, organizations combined cause and system modeling. 2. Scientific legitimacy of methodological symbiosis in modeling ontological categories of causality and system based organic fusion, unity causality, consistency and cooperation, both material attributes reality and connectivity respective categories in a design model of the complete reason.3. System analysis of forensic deterministic relationships, as a logical continuation of orthodox integration of causal factors is an innovative and productive in modern scientific forensics

When modulating the conditional-causal determination of trauma, monitoring using conditioning theory is tested. In the traumatic process, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the formation of bodily injury were investigated in order to verify causal relationships. In the traumatic process, the necessary and sufficient conditions for the formation of bodily injury and complications are investigated.

Both forensic and complex forensic and transport-tracological examination of car trauma was and remains the most valuable source of evidence in the criminal process, both at the pre-trial investigation stage and in court. Summary. The article deals with problematic issues of forensic medical examination of car injuries, starting from the fundamental works of the last century, and up to the present day. The special role of a careful study of the nature and mechanism of inflicting bodily injuries to the victims is underlined. Particular attention is paid to a significant change in the morphology and mechanism of causing bodily injuries to victims in connection with the use in the design of a modern car of various new elements and devices that enhance human safety in road accidents. The main tendencies of development of expert analysis in cases of road accidents are listed, and the absolute necessity of cooperation between experts in different branches of knowledge (forensic doctors, transport specialists, medical forensics) during expert studies related to road accidents is proved. Conclusions.The basis of forensic medical examination in cases of various accidents has been and remains the study of the morphological features of injuries in the injured, as well as injuries and traces on clothing and footwear. 2. At the same time, new structural elements of modern cars lead to the formation of damages that differ significantly from the previously observed morphological features. 3. The most complete expert study in cases of accidents can only be done through the joint work of experts of various specialties - forensic doctors, medical forensics, transport specialists.