Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T17:57:58.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence and Association: Epistemic Confusion in Toxic Tort Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Mark Parascandola
Mark Parascandola*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Attempts at quantification turn up in many areas within the modern courtroom, but nowhere more than in the realm of toxic tort law. Evidence, in these cases, is routinely presented in statistical form. The vagueness inherent in phrases such as ‘balance of probabilities’ and ‘more likely than not’ is reinterpreted to correspond to precise mathematical values. Standing alone these developments would not be a cause for great concern. But in practice courts and commentators have routinely mixed up incompatible quantities, leading to grave injustice. I argue that these confusions result from an unjustified assumption of universal causal determinism.

Type
Causation and Explanation
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 63 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1996 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1996. , 1996 , pp. S168 - S176
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to Hugh Mellor, Peter Lipton, Edward Burger, Dan Blinka, and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and discussion on earlier versions of this paper.

‡

Faculty of Philosophy, University of Cambridge, Raised Faculty Building, Sidgwick Ave., Cambridge, UK CB3 9DA.

References

In re “Agent Orange” Product Liability Litigation (1984) 597 F. Supp. 740.Google Scholar
Allen, R. J. (1994), “Factual Ambiguity and a Theory of Evidence”, Northwestern University Law Review 87: 604–640.Google Scholar
Brennan, T. A. and Carter, R. F. (1985), “Legal and Scientific Probability of Causation of Cancer and Other Environmental Disease in Individuals”, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 10: 33–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Callahan, C. L. (1991), “Establishment of Causation in Toxic Tort Litigation”, Arizona State Law Journal 23: 605–674.Google Scholar
Charrow, R. P. and Bernstein, D. E. (1994), Scientific Evidence in the Courtroom: Admissibility and Statistical Significance After Daubert. Washington, D.C.: Washington Legal Foundation.Google Scholar
Cranor, C. (1993), Regulating Toxic Substances: A Philosophy of Science and the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1995) 43 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir.).Google Scholar
Dore, M. (1983), “A Commentary on the Use of Epidemiological Evidence in Demonstrating Cause-in-Fact”, Harvard Environmental Law Review 7: 429–440.Google Scholar
Eells, E. (1991), Probabilistic Causality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, A. S. (1976), “Causation and Disease: The Henle-Koch Postulates Revisited”, Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine 49: 175–195.Google ScholarPubMed
Farber, D. A. (1987), “Toxic Causation”, Minnesota Law Review 71: 1219–1261.Google Scholar
Feinberg, K. R., Cheek, L., Nicholas, R. B., Priest, G. and Whittenberger, J. L. (1985), “Final Report of the Conference Panel”, in Novey, L. B., (ed.), L. B. Novey, Washington, D.C.: Institute for Health Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
Hill, A. B. (1965), “The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation?”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine 58: 1217–1219.Google ScholarPubMed
Humphreys, P. (1989), The Chances of Explanation: Causal Explanation in the Social, Medical, and Physical Sciences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Keeton, W. P., Dobbs, D. B., Keeton, R. E. and Owen, D. G. (1984), Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th. ed. St. Paul: West Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A. (1984), “Tort Law as a Regulatory Regime for Catastrophic Personal Injuries”, Journal of Legal Studies 13: 417–440.10.1086/467750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A. (1987), The Economic Structure of Tort Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.10.4159/harvard.9780674864030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellor, D. H. (1995), The Facts of Causation. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203302682CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McElveen, J. C. and Eddy, P. S. (1984–85), “Cancer and Toxic Substances: The Problem of Causation and the Use of Epidemiology”, Cleveland State Law Review 33: 29–67.Google Scholar
Note (1978), “DES and a Proposed Theory of Enterprise Liability”, Fordham Law Review 46: 963–973.Google Scholar
Novick, J. S. (1987), “Use of Epidemiological Studies to Prove Legal Causation: Aspirin and Reye's Syndrome, a Case in Point”, Tort & Insurance Law Journal 22: 536–553.Google Scholar
Robinson, G. O. (1985), “Probabilistic Causation and Compensation for Tortious Risk”, The Journal of Legal Studies 14: 779–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, D. (1984), “The Causal Connection in Mass Exposure Cases: A Public Law Vision of the Tort System”, Harvard Law Review 97: 849–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, W. C. (1984), Scientific Explanation and the Causal Structure of the World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shavell, S. (1987), Economic Analysis of Accident Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stapleton, J. (1986), Disease and the Compensation Debate. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Susser, M. (1973), Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences: Concepts and Strategies in Epidemiology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, R. W. (1988), “Causation, Responsibility, Risk, Probability, Naked Statistics, and Proof: Pruning the Bramble Bush by Clarifying the Concepts”, Iowa Law Review 73: 1001.Google Scholar