{"title":"侵权法中因果关系证明例外的正当性","authors":"S. Steel","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article defends a set of exceptions to the general rule in tort law that a claimant must prove that a particular defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause of its injury on the balance of probabilities in order to be entitled to compensatory damages in respect of that injury. The basic rationale for each exception is that it provides a means of enforcing the defendant's secondary moral duty to its victim. The article further demonstrates that the acceptance of this set of exceptions does not undermine the general rule.","PeriodicalId":320322,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Tort Litigation","volume":"77 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law\",\"authors\":\"S. Steel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1468-2230.12142\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article defends a set of exceptions to the general rule in tort law that a claimant must prove that a particular defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause of its injury on the balance of probabilities in order to be entitled to compensatory damages in respect of that injury. The basic rationale for each exception is that it provides a means of enforcing the defendant's secondary moral duty to its victim. The article further demonstrates that the acceptance of this set of exceptions does not undermine the general rule.\",\"PeriodicalId\":320322,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Tort Litigation\",\"volume\":\"77 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Tort Litigation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12142\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Tort Litigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12142","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Justifying Exceptions to Proof of Causation in Tort Law
This article defends a set of exceptions to the general rule in tort law that a claimant must prove that a particular defendant's wrongful conduct was a cause of its injury on the balance of probabilities in order to be entitled to compensatory damages in respect of that injury. The basic rationale for each exception is that it provides a means of enforcing the defendant's secondary moral duty to its victim. The article further demonstrates that the acceptance of this set of exceptions does not undermine the general rule.