Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Legal Causation is usually expressed as a question of 'foreseeability'. An actor is liable for the foreseeable, but not the unforeseeable, consequences of his or her act. For example, it is foreseeable that if I shoot someone on a beach and they are immobilized, they may drown in a rising tide rather than from the trauma of the gunshot wound or ...
Knowing that causation is a matter of counterfactual dependence, we may reflect on the nature of counterfactual dependence to account for the nature of causation. For example, in his paper "Counterfactual Dependence and Time's Arrow," Lewis sought to account for the time-directedness of counterfactual dependence in terms of the semantics of the ...
Causation in English law concerns the legal tests of remoteness, causation and foreseeability in the tort of negligence. It is also relevant for English criminal law and English contract law. In the English law of negligence, causation proves a direct link between the defendant’s negligence and the claimant’s loss and damage.
Causal research, is the investigation of (research into) cause-relationships. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] To determine causality, variation in the variable presumed to influence the difference in another variable(s) must be detected, and then the variations from the other variable(s) must be calculated (s).
There are two types of causation in the law: cause-in-fact, and proximate (or legal) cause. Cause-in-fact is determined by the "but for" test: But for the action, the result would not have happened. [1] (For example, but for running the red light, the collision would not have occurred.)
The Bradford Hill criteria, otherwise known as Hill's criteria for causation, are a group of nine principles that can be useful in establishing epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect and have been widely used in public health research.
March v Stramare Pty Ltd (E & MH) Pty Ltd (commonly known as March v Stramare) [1] was a High Court of Australia case decided in 1991 on Australian tort law.The case considered the conditions required for causation to be established in tort law, the limitations of the "but for" test and the significance of an intervening act by a third party in determining causation.
Causal reasoning is the process of identifying causality: the relationship between a cause and its effect.The study of causality extends from ancient philosophy to contemporary neuropsychology; assumptions about the nature of causality may be shown to be functions of a previous event preceding a later one.