en
Studia Iuridica

Proof of Causation in Tort Cases

2019, 82, No. 1

Bohdan Karnaukh

Yaroslav Muryi National Law University

DOI

10.5604/01.3001.0013.9616

Publication date

02.03.2020

Publishing model

open access

License type

CC BY 4.0 Int.

Field

Law

Discipline

law

Language of publication

English

Downloads

PDF 370 KB

Article

Number of views:205

Number of downloads:28

Crossref citations:0

Altmetric score:0

Abstract

The article addresses the problem of uncertainty over causation in tort cases. It reveals the interconnection between burden of proof and standard of proof. The author provides a comparative overview of approaches to standard of proof in common law and civil law systems. It is argued that while in common law there are two different standards viz: beyond-reasonable-doubt-standard for criminal cases and balanceof-probabilities standard for civil cases in civil law system there is only one standard applicable both to criminal and civil cases. With comparative analysis in the background the article also reveals the peculiarities of Ukrainian law in the respect of the issue raised. The problem is approached in a pragmatic manner: using a hypothetical case the author models practical outcomes entailed by each of the approaches being applied to the case. Eventually the conclusion is made that there are four ways of coping with uncertainty over causation: (1) to reverse the burden of proof; (2) to calibrate the standard of proof for certain cases; (3) to recognize the very creation of the abnormal risk as a compensable damage; and (4) to multiply damage plaintiff sustained by the probability factor indicating the likelihood of the damage being actually caused by the defendant.

Keywords:

Bibliography

Brinkmann M., The Synthesis of Common and Civil Law Standard of Proof Formulae in the ALI/UNIDROIT Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure, “Uniform Law Review” 2004, Vol. 9, issue 4

Clermont K. M., Sherwin E. A., Comparative View of Standards of Proof, “American Journal of Comparative Law” 2002, Vol. 50, issue 2

Emaus J. M., Asbestos Exposure at the Workplace, Smoking Habits & Lung Cancer: Dutch Reflections on Employer Liability, “European Review of Private Law” 2017, Vol. 25, issue 6

Hamer D., Probability, Anti-Resilience, and the Weight of Expectation, “Law, Probability and Risk” 2012, Vol. 11, issue 2–3

Martin-Casals M., Causation Conundrums: Introduction to the Annotations to Sienkiewicz v. Greif (UK), “European Review of Private Law” 2013, Vol. 21, issue 1

Ruda A., From Salamander’s Wool to Lethal Dust: Asbestos Liability Under Spanish Law in Light of Heneghan, “European Review of Private Law” 2017, Vol. 25, issue 6

Ruda A., The DES Daughters in Spain: Liability for Damage Caused by the Exposure to a Defective Drug in Utero, “European Review of Private Law” 2013, Vol. 21, issue 2

Samii S. M., Keirse A., Taxonomy of Asbestos Litigation in the Netherlands: Duelling with Causal Uncertainty, “European Review of Private Law” 2013, Vol. 21, issue 1

Steel S., Sienkiewicz v Grief and exceptional doctrines of natural causation, “Journal of European Tort Law” 2011, Vol. 2, issue 3

Thiede T., Defective Pharmaceuticals and Indeterminate Tortfeasors: A German Law Perspective on DES-Daughters Scenarios, “European Review of Private Law” 2013, Vol. 21, issue 2

Voyiakis E., Causation and Opportunity in Tort, “Oxford Journal of Legal Studies” 2018, Vol. 38, issue 1

Wagner G., Asbestos-Related Diseases in German Law, “European Review of Private Law” 2013, Vol. 21, issue 1

Ward T., Expert Evidence, “Naked Statistics” and Standards of Proof, “European Journal of Risk Regulation” 2016, Vol. 7, issue 3

Williams C. R., Burdens and Standards in Civil Litigation, “Sydney Law Review” 2003, Vol. 25, issue 2

Similar publications