Evidential uncertainty in causation in negligence
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Evidential uncertainty in causation in negligence
(Hart studies in private law, v. 15)
Hart, 2018, c2016
- : pbk
Available at 2 libraries
  Aomori
  Iwate
  Miyagi
  Akita
  Yamagata
  Fukushima
  Ibaraki
  Tochigi
  Gunma
  Saitama
  Chiba
  Tokyo
  Kanagawa
  Niigata
  Toyama
  Ishikawa
  Fukui
  Yamanashi
  Nagano
  Gifu
  Shizuoka
  Aichi
  Mie
  Shiga
  Kyoto
  Osaka
  Hyogo
  Nara
  Wakayama
  Tottori
  Shimane
  Okayama
  Hiroshima
  Yamaguchi
  Tokushima
  Kagawa
  Ehime
  Kochi
  Fukuoka
  Saga
  Nagasaki
  Kumamoto
  Oita
  Miyazaki
  Kagoshima
  Okinawa
  Korea
  China
  Thailand
  United Kingdom
  Germany
  Switzerland
  France
  Belgium
  Netherlands
  Sweden
  Norway
  United States of America
Note
"First published in hardback, 2016"--T.p. verso
Based on the author's thesis (doctoral--University of Birmingham, 2013)
Includes bibliographical references (p. [227]-236) and index
Description and Table of Contents
Description
This book undertakes an analysis of academic and judicial responses to the problem of evidential uncertainty in causation in negligence. It seeks to bring clarity to what has become a notoriously complex area by adopting a clear approach to the function of the doctrine of causation within a corrective justice-based account of negligence liability. It first explores basic causal models and issues of proof, including the role of statistical and epidemiological evidence, in order to isolate the problem of evidential uncertainty more precisely. Application of Richard Wright's NESS test to a range of English case law shows it to be more comprehensive than the 'but for' test that currently dominates, thereby reducing the need to resort to additional tests, such as the Wardlaw test of material contribution to harm, the scope and meaning of which are uncertain. The book builds on this foundation to explore the solution to a range of problems of evidential uncertainty, focusing on the Fairchild principle and the idea of risk as damage, as well as the notion of loss of a chance in medical negligence which is often seen as analogous with 'increase in risk', in an attempt to bring coherence to this area of the law.
Table of Contents
Introduction
1. Theoretical and Doctrinal Framework
2. Identifying the Proper Function of Causation
Part I: Identifying the Function of Causation in Negligence
Part II: Tests for Causation
Part III: Using NESS to Overcome Common Problems with Exceptional Legal Tests
3. Proof of Causation
4. Loss of a Chance
Part I: Loss of a Chance: Proportionate Recovery for Physical Harm
Part II: The 'Lost Opportunity' as Damage
5. The Evidentiary Gap
Conclusion
by "Nielsen BookData"