This paper considers how tort law should respond to scientific developments that improve our ability to connect toxic exposure to changes in human health. Starting from a normative position that encourages proof of traditional sine qua non causation, the paper suggests an allocation of cases between the tort system and legislatively-created compensation programs. With regard to the latter, the paper sets out guidelines that lawmakers can use when deciding whether to replace tort law. With regard to the former, the paper divides its recommendations into two categories, one for cases where plaintiffs have existing clinical symptoms of disease, and another where plaintiffs have only an increased risk of disease. Recognizing the gray area that exists between these two groups, the paper proposes burdens consistent with traditional causation rules to serve tort law's underlying goals.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Can There Be a Unified Theory of Torts? A Pluralist Suggestion From History and Doctrine.Christopher J. Robinette - manuscript
Compensation for Mere Exposure to Risk.Nicole A. Vincent - 2005 - Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy 29:89-101.
Legal Causation and Imputation in English Law (Causalité Juridique Et Imputation: Réflexions Sur Quelques Développements Récents En Droit Anglais).Stathis Banakas - unknown
Proving Causation: The Holism of Warrant and the Atomism of Daubert.Susan Haack - 2008 - Journal of Health and Biomedical Law 4:253-289.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #693,688 of 2,163,694 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #348,043 of 2,163,694 )
How can I increase my downloads?