Evaluation of causal arguments in law : the case of overdetermination
License
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Author(s)
Citation
ICAIL '19 : proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York : Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2019, pp. 214-218
Cite
LIEPIŅA, Rūta, SARTOR, Giovanni, WYNER, Adam, Evaluation of causal arguments in law : the case of overdetermination, in ICAIL ’19 : proceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, New York : Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), 2019, pp. 214-218 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/76637
Abstract
In many legal disputes, determining and evaluating cause-in-fact is a crucial step in the liability attribution. It is, however, difficult and opaque. In this paper, we analyse the cases of overdetermination, where there is more than one cause for the outcome. The proposed framework (FCA) employs logic-based argument modelling. It distinguishes individual contributors in overdetermination cases by using a new set of critical questions based on argument schemes from effect-to-cause. To illustrate the use of the FCA, the Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks lung cancer case with multi-party contributions is analysed.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Published: 17 June 2019