Causality and Association: The Statistical and Legal Approaches
This paper discusses different needs and approaches to establishing "causation" that are relevant in legal cases involving statistical input based on epidemiological (or more generally observational or population-based) information.
We distinguish between three versions of "cause": the first involves negligence in providing or allowing exposure, the second involves "cause" as it is shown through a scientifically proved increased risk of an outcome from the exposure in a population, and the third considers "cause" as it might apply to an individual plaintiff based on the first two. The population-oriented "cause" is that commonly addressed by statisticians, and we propose a variation on the Bradford Hill approach to testing such causality in an observational framework, and discuss how such a systematic series of tests might be considered in a legal context.
We review some current legal approaches to using probabilistic statements, and link these with the scientific methodology as developed here. In particular, we provide an approach both to the idea of individual outcomes being caused on a balance of probabilities, and to the idea of material contribution to such outcomes.
Statistical terminology and legal usage of terms such as "proof on the balance of probabilities" or "causation" can easily become confused, largely due to similar language describing dissimilar concepts; we conclude, however, that a careful analysis can identify and separate those areas in which a legal decision alone is required and those areas in which scientific approaches are useful.
Impact and interest:
Citation counts are sourced monthly from and citation databases.
These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.
Citations counts from theindexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.
Full-text downloads displays the total number of times this work’s files (e.g., a PDF) have been downloaded from QUT ePrints as well as the number of downloads in the previous 365 days. The count includes downloads for all files if a work has more than one.
|Item Type:||Journal Article|
|Keywords:||Statistical causation, epidemiological risk, relative risk, legal causation, tort, negligence, admissible evidence|
|Subjects:||Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES (010000) > STATISTICS (010400) > Statistical Theory (010405)
Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES (010000) > STATISTICS (010400) > Applied Statistics (010401)
|Divisions:||Past > QUT Faculties & Divisions > Faculty of Science and Technology|
|Copyright Owner:||Copyright 2007 Institute of Mathematical Statistics|
|Copyright Statement:||Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.|
|Deposited On:||25 Sep 2008 00:00|
|Last Modified:||29 Feb 2012 13:40|
Repository Staff Only: item control page