Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law

Steel, Sandy

doi:10.1111/1468-2230.12142

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, to prove causation is often difficult. If the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's act, then the element of causation is missing because the connection between an act and injury is not strong enough to justify imposing liability (Steel, 2015). This places a burden on the plaintiff i.e.…”

Section: Causation and Remoteness Of Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Liability of the Manufacturer under Tort of Negligence on the Issue of Halal

Naimat

Bakar²,

Arif³

2022

MJSSH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The tort of negligence provides a legal remedy. A consumer who suffers injury due to the negligence of a manufacturer will be able to bring a suit under the tort of negligence. This is because a person owes a duty of care to anybody who is directly and closely affected by the action or omission of another person. The effect of this application is that a person is liable for every injury that results from his carelessness. Therefore, the aim of this article is to examine the extent to which the tort of negligence is capable of imposing liability on manufacturers and protecting consumers on the issue of halal. Whether the tort of negligence is available and applicable in providing protection to the consumer on the issue of halal. By applying a doctrinal approach based on the qualitative methodology of legal research, this research involved an analysis of the tort of negligence as well as court cases. This article demonstrates that the tort of deceit has various problems and is not a viable option for consumers in seeking protection on the issue of halal.

show abstract

Section: Causation and Remoteness Of Damagementioning

confidence: 99%

Liability of the Manufacturer under Tort of Negligence on the Issue of Halal

Naimat

Bakar²,

Arif³

2022

MJSSH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The probable and the nonarbitrary: evidential foundations for a finding of guilt

Levanon

2021

Legal stud.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper explores the use of statistical data and statistical assumptions as evidence in criminal trials. It is suggested that a finding of guilt includes not only its main factual proposition but also additional propositions that support and affirm it. Specifically, it includes not only the proposition that the defendant committed the offence but also the additional affirming proposition that it is this defendant rather than any other potential defendant who committed the offence (the ‘D rather than A’ proposition). Some statistical generalisations provide reasons in defence of the main proposition but not in defence of the affirming proposition, which then remains random or arbitrary. Yet since criminal convictions include a moral judgement, they cannot be justified where some of their propositions are arbitrary. Accordingly, such statistical generalisations cannot justify a criminal conviction.

show abstract

Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Liability of the Manufacturer under Tort of Negligence on the Issue of Halal

Liability of the Manufacturer under Tort of Negligence on the Issue of Halal

The probable and the nonarbitrary: evidential foundations for a finding of guilt

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About