Probabilistic Causation and Compensation for Tortious Risk

Robinson, Glen O.

doi:10.1086/467799

Cited by 49 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…fair 23 (Wright, 1992). The focus of many scholars seems to be not deterrence (efficiency theory) but either on victim compensation or wrongdoer's punishment (corrective justice theory) (Robinson, 1985;Kelman, 1987;Schwartz, 1987;Perry, 1992;Weinrib, 1992;Dewees, Duff, and Trebilcock, 1996).…”

Section: (Un)justicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Limits of Probabilistic Causality in Law

Cofone¹

2015

Global Jurist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is still controversy regarding what criterion to use to evaluate causality. The law & economics literature proposes the use of probabilistic causality as a superior criterion, suggesting the elimination of binary causality criteria. This led to explanations that violate our intuitions, fail to explain judicial decision-making, and are considered unjust. This paper proposes that neither binary nor probabilistic causality can provide a satisfactory answer for all scenarios. Probabilistic causality works well for general causal claims (types of claims centrally involved in rulemaking) while binary criteria perform better for single causal claims (types of claims commonly addressed by courts).

show abstract

Section: (Un)justicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…For a critique of that opinion see Kaye and Aickin (1984) and Robinson (1982). 27 For some, liability based on risk creation is a direct violation of the principles of justice (Weinrib, 1983;Robinson, 1985). For others, not being punished for a result one did not factually produce is a central element of freedom of action (Thomson, 1984).…”

Section: (Un)justicementioning

confidence: 99%

The Limits of Probabilistic Causality in Law

Cofone¹

2015

Global Jurist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…90 Interestingly this has been put forward by scholars in support of liability for loss of a chance. 91 The House of Lords did not adopt this line of argument, though, most likely because the aim of the contemporary law of tort or delict is not retribution. But if we understand Julian's reference to impunitas as a policy argument, 92 his reasoning gets very close to their Lordships' in Fairchild and Barker.…”

Section: The Edinburgh Law Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Harmful Conduct as the Touchstone of Causation: An Analytical Comparison of Barker v Corus and Julian

Zahn

2011

Edinburgh Law Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…On the judgment-proof problem, see Shavell (1986) and Beard (1990). 3 See, generally, Landes and Posner (1984), Robinson (1985), and Slagel (1988). 4 See, e.g., Slagel (1988) and Hamrick (1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Should Victims of Exposure to a Toxic Substance have an Independent Claim for Medical Monitoring?

Miceli¹,

Segerson²

2007

Research in Law and Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditional tort law does not allow a victim of exposure to a toxic substance to seek damages without evidence of actual loss. Given the difficulty of collecting damages after a long latency period, however, we examine the desirability of granting exposure victims an independent cause of action for medical monitoring at the time of exposure. We show that such a cause of action is not necessary to induce victims to invest in efficient monitoring. It can, however, increase incentives for injurer care, but only at the cost of greater litigation costs. The general reluctance of courts to adopt a cause of action reflects their recognition of this trade-off.

show abstract

Probabilistic Causation and Compensation for Tortious Risk

Cited by 49 publications

References 0 publications

The Limits of Probabilistic Causality in Law

The Limits of Probabilistic Causality in Law

Harmful Conduct as the Touchstone of Causation: An Analytical Comparison of Barker v Corus and Julian

Should Victims of Exposure to a Toxic Substance have an Independent Claim for Medical Monitoring?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About