Causal Comparisons

Abstract

Focusing on the multiple meanings of the statement A was a more important cause of C than was B, Professor Strassfeld considers the feasibility of comparative causation as a means of apportioning legal responsibility for harms. He concludse that by combining two different interpretations of more important cause --judgments of comparative counterfactual similarity and the Uniform Comparative Fault Act approach of comparative responsibility--we can effectively make causal comparisons and avoid the effort to compare such incommensurables as the defendant\u27s fault under a strict liability standard and the plaintiff\u27s failt for failure to exercise reasonable care