Abstract
Legal decision-making entails the possibility of error, and legal rules may preferentially create a higher risk of one type of error than another. In toxic tort causation disputes, much legal doctrine implicitly prefers to risk false negative errors -- incorrectly rejecting questionable causal claims that are actually true -- over false positive errors -- incorrectly accepting causal claims that are actually false. This article explains how legal doctrines create that asymmetry, explores possible reasons for the asymmetry, and describes how the Third Restatement of Torts offers courts an opportunity to correct the asymmetry without sacrificing the truth-seeking objective of adjudication.
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.
