THE IMPUTATION OF HARM TO A PERSON WHO IS ECONOMICALLY EASIER TO BEAR ITS CONSEQUENCES AS AN ARGUMENT FOR SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF ALTERNATIVE CAUSATION IN TORT LAW

Abstract

This article is devoted to a critical analysis of the argument that damage must be attributed to a person who is economically easier to bear its consequences, in relation to the main area of its application in private law discourse de lege lata, i.e., justification of the phenomenon of strict liability in tort law. It is argued that the main theories arising from this argument turn out to be inapplicable to the problem of alternative causation, despite the occasional use of this argument in case law.