Abstract
Within the law, the traditional test for attributing causal responsibility is the “but-for”. test, which asks whether, ‘but for’ the defendant’s wrongful act, the injury complained of would have occurred. This definition conforms to common intuitions regarding causation, but gives non-intuitive results in complex situations of overdetermination where two or more potential causes are present. To handle such situations, Wright defined the NESS Test, considered to be a significant refinement of Hart and Honore’s classic approach to causality in the law. We show that though Wright’s terminology lacks the mathematical rigor of Halpern and Pearl, the Halpern and Pearl definition essentially formalizes Wright’s definition, provides an alternative theory of the test’s validity, and fixes problems with the NESS test raised by Wright’s critics. However, the Halpern and Pearl definition seems to yield puzzling results in some situations involving double omission, and we propose a solution.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashley, Kevin D. (1990) Modeling legal arguments: reasoning with cases and hypotheticals. Cambridge: MIT Press, 329 pages.
Baldwin, Richard A (to appear). A Structural Model Interpretation of Wright’s NESS test. Department of Computer Science, University of Saskatchewan, MSc thesis.
Galles, D., and Pearl, J. (1997).Axioms of causal relevance. Artificial Intelligence, 97(1–2), 9–43.
Galles, D., & Pearl, J. (1998). An axiomatic characterization of causal counterfactuals. Foundations of Science, 3(1), 151–182.
Halpern, J.Y., and Pearl, J. (2000). Causes and explanations: a structural-model approach. Retrieved from http://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/halpern/topics.html#rau September 3, 2001 (Part I, Causes, appears in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence, San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 194–202, 2001.)
Hart, H.L.A., and Honoré, A.M. (1985). Causation in the law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Pearl, J. (1995). Causal diagrams for empirical research. Biometrika, 82(4), 669–710.
Pearl, J. (1998). On the definition of actual cause. Technical Report (no. R-259), Department of Computer Science, University of California, Los Angeles.
Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning, and inference. NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
Wright, R.W. (1985). Causation in tort law. California Law Review, 73. pp. 1735–1828.
Wright, R.W. (1988) Causation, responsibility, risk, probability, naked statistics, and proof: Pruning the bramble bush by clarifying the concepts. Iowa Law Review, 73, pp. 1001–1077.
Wright, R.W. (2001). Once more into the bramble bush: Duty, causal contribution, and the extent of legal responsibility [Electronic version]. Vanderbilt Law Review, 54(3), pp. 1071–1132.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Baldwin, R.A., Neufeld, E. (2003). The Structure Model Interpretation of Wright’s NESS Test. In: Xiang, Y., Chaib-draa, B. (eds) Advances in Artificial Intelligence. Canadian AI 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2671. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44886-1_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-44886-1_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-40300-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-44886-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive