FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123717065> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123717065 startingPage "249" @default.
• W3123717065 abstract "I. introduction It has been repeatedly asserted by tort scholars that, unlike proximate cause inquiries, an inquiry into cause-in-fact is a straightforward, factual matter devoid of policy.1 That is a myth.2 Over the past one hundred years, courts in the United States, Canada, and Britain have wrestled with doctrinal solutions solving difficult torts cases turning on cause-in-fact. Courts have traditionally applied the for, or sine qua non, test of cause-in-fact when faced with determining cause in a torts action. Where the for test fails, courts have reached the substantial factor, or material contribution to injury, approach to divine what role a defendant had in causing injury to a plaintiff. The majority of cause-in-fact questions that come before a court can be solved using either one of these two approaches. However, there exists a pattern of torts cases where courts have found both the for test and substantial factor test unsatisfactory. These cases are unique in that they tend to exhibit a peculiar set of facts, which makes determining a breach of the standard of care possible but determining cause-in-fact nearly impossible. For example, a doctor's negligence in prescribing the incorrect treatment an already ill patient may be a possible cause of the subsequent death of the patient. However, the death may also have been caused by the already existing illness-a non-culpable, possible cause. Often there is no way to pinpoint the actual cause of injury. All that is known is that the defendant's negligence increased the risk that the plaintiff's injury might occur. A fact finder is faced with the difficult decision of whether or not to award compensation to a plaintiff who has been exposed to a risk of injury created by a defendant's negligence but who may possibly have been injured by a cause not related to the defendant's negligence. Cause-in-fact is ambiguous. These types of cases nag at one's sense of justice and are problematic courts expected to apply predictable, rational legal principles. If, out of a set of two or more competing, independent possible causes, the plaintiff cannot definitively prove on a balance of probabilities that one competing independent cause of her injury is the defendant's negligence, the plaintiff cannot succeed on traditional cause-in-fact principles. Yet, when a plaintiff can establish that the defendant's conduct fell below the applicable standard of care, some courts in the United States, Canada, and Britain have refused to rob the plaintiff of an opportunity to prove causation and have modified cause-in-fact doctrine to accommodate the plaintiff. Three methods that courts use to aid a plaintiff have emerged through various courts' continued exposure to these types of cases: (1) a court could reverse the burden of proof of causation to the defendant to disprove causation; (2) a court could infer causation based on a reasonable conclusion on the facts of the case; or (3) a court could hold the defendant liable materially increasing the risk of injury to the plaintiff. Because these methods depart from traditional, established torts doctrine, each of these solutions owes its existence to subtle, competing policy considerations. Understanding the application of judicially created cause-in-fact doctrine to a case where proof of cause is at best ambiguous, necessitates understanding what has driven the court to tinker with existing tort doctrine in the first place. It is the aim of this article to explore how these three modifications to traditional cause-in-fact principles operate, examine why they arose, and then use a normative lens to evaluate why they need to be consolidated into a predictable and portable outgrowth of causation doctrine. This article is divided into four substantive sections. Part II defines the landscape of cause-in-fact doctrine and explains how American, Canadian, and British courts have modified this landscape to oblige ambiguous causation cases. …" @default.
• W3123717065 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123717065 creator A5030006515 @default.
• W3123717065 date "2003-04-01" @default.
• W3123717065 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W3123717065 title "Ambiguous Cause-in-Fact and Structured Causation: A Multi-Jurisdictional Approach" @default.
• W3123717065 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W3123717065 type Work @default.
• W3123717065 sameAs 3123717065 @default.
• W3123717065 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W3123717065 countsByYear W31237170652015 @default.
• W3123717065 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123717065 hasAuthorship W3123717065A5030006515 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C114425635 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C140334061 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C151730666 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C166151441 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C170706310 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2776463841 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2777267654 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2777895093 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2780791683 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C2910426306 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C114425635 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C121332964 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C140334061 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C144024400 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C151730666 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C166151441 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C170706310 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C17744445 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C190253527 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C199539241 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C200635333 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2776463841 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2777267654 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2777381055 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2777834853 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2777895093 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2778272461 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2780791683 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C2910426306 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C62520636 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C86803240 @default.
• W3123717065 hasConceptScore W3123717065C97460637 @default.
• W3123717065 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3123717065 hasLocation W31237170651 @default.
• W3123717065 hasOpenAccess W3123717065 @default.
• W3123717065 hasPrimaryLocation W31237170651 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W1527306418 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W1541609534 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W16691182 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W1985290869 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2042551914 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2223687006 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2269557596 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2293495755 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2553903012 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2759879 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2939039929 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2993425765 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W3034837907 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W3121272391 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W3121951054 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W3123945411 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W3124776347 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W3125521425 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W63645785 @default.
• W3123717065 hasRelatedWork W2166332181 @default.
• W3123717065 hasVolume "38" @default.
• W3123717065 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123717065 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123717065 magId "3123717065" @default.
• W3123717065 workType "article" @default.