“…In "the two hunters", for example, if we found that only one bullet reached the body, and we knew from which hunter it came, both hunters would seem to have still ex-ante increased the marginal probability of damage by more than 50%, but only one of them would be the more-likely-than-not cause of damage. 1986, Rosenberg, 1984;Levmore, 1990), and with the doctrine of foreseeability, which does not address causal questions. 15 The deep reason behind the use of probabilistic causality in law & economics, especially in its form of proportional liability, is in the words of Shavell that "for parties to be led to reduce accident risks appropriately, they should generally face probability-discounted or "expected" liability equal to the increase in the expected losses that they create" (Shavell, 1985, 587-588).…”