Abstract
Despite the findings of natural scientists and philosophers, the law is still clinging on a deterministic concept of causation. Probabilistic considerations are not alien to the legal world, yet they are generally regarded as ad hoc exceptions to handle particularly complex cases. From this perspective, the need for a theoretical shift is advocated. Probabilistic causation should become the norm, whereas deterministic causation should only be used as a heuristic tool when confronted with prima facie deterministic cases. A distinction is drawn between the ex-ante and the ex-post probabilistic approach to causation. The former seems to be a better approach for lagged torts, whereas the latter is more appropriate to handle instant torts.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
