Evaluation of Causal Arguments in Law: the Case of Overdetermination
Pages 214 - 218
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.
References
[1]
SH Bailey. Causation in negligence: what is a material contribution? Legal Studies, 30(2):167--185, 2010.
[2]
Floris J Bex, Peter J Van Koppen, Henry Prakken, and Bart Verheij. A hybrid formal theory of arguments, stories and criminal evidence. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(2):123--152, 2010.
[3]
Alexander Bochman. Actual causality in a logical setting. In IJCAI, pages 1730--1736, 2018.
[4]
Andrei Bondarenko, Phan Minh Dung, Robert A Kowalski, and Francesca Toni. An abstract, argumentation-theoretic approach to default reasoning. Artificial intelligence, 93(1-2):63--101, 1997.
[5]
Hana Chockler and Joseph Y Halpern. Responsibility and blame: A structural-model approach. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research, 22:93--115, 2004.
[6]
Philip Dawid, William Twining, and Mimi Vasilaki. Evidence, inference and enquiry. British Academy, 2011.
[7]
Phan Minh Dung. On the acceptability of arguments and its fundamental role in nonmonotonic reasoning, logic programming and n-person games. Artiicial intelligence, 77(2):321--357, 1995.
[8]
Norman Fenton, Martin Neil, and David A Lagnado. A general structure for legal arguments about evidence using bayesian networks. Cognitive science, 37(1):61--102, 2013.
[9]
Joseph Y Halpern. Actual causality. MIT Press, 2016.
[10]
ErinMHarley. Hindsight bias in legal decision making. Social Cognition, 25(1):48--63, 2007.
[11]
Antony Honoré. Causation in the law. In Edward N. Zalta, editor, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Winter 2010 edition, 2010.
[12]
PN Lee. Relation between exposure to asbestos and smoking jointly and the risk of lung cancer. Occupational and environmental medicine, 58(3):145--153, 2001.
[13]
Jos Lehmann, Joost Breuker, and Bob Brouwer. Causation in ai and law. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 12(4):279--315, 2004.
[14]
Rūta Liepiņa, Giovanni Sartor, and Adam Wyner. Arguing about causes in law: a semi-formal framework for causal arguments. Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 1--21, 2019.
[15]
Michael S Moore. Causation and responsibility: An essay in law, morals, and metaphysics. Oxford University Press on Demand, 2009.
[16]
Judea Pearl. Causality. Cambridge university press, 2009.
[17]
Jane Stapleton. The two explosive proof-of-causation doctrines central to asbestos claims. Brook. L. Rev., 74:1011, 2008.
[18]
Bart Verheij, FJ Bex, Sjoerd T Timmer, JJC Meyer, SILJA Renooij, HENRY Prakken, et al. Arguments, scenarios and probabilities: connections between three normative frameworks for evidential reasoning. Law, Probability & Risk, 2015.
[19]
Douglas Walton. Argumentation methods for artificial intelligence in law. Springer Science & Business Media, 2005.
[20]
Richard W Wright. The ness account of natural causation: A response to criticisms. 2011.
[21]
Adam Z Wyner, Trevor JM Bench-Capon, and Katie M Atkinson. Towards formalising argumentation about legal cases. In Proceedings of the 13th international conference on artificial intelligence and law, pages 1--10. ACM, 2011.
- Evaluation of Causal Arguments in Law: the Case of Overdetermination
Recommendations
Real arguments are approximate arguments
AAAI'07: Proceedings of the 22nd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1There are a number of frameworks for modelling argumentation in logic. They incorporate a formal representation of individual arguments and techniques for comparing conflicting arguments. A common assumption for logic-based argumentation is that an ...
Reasoning about the appropriateness of proponents for arguments
AAAI'08: Proceedings of the 23rd national conference on Artificial intelligence - Volume 1Formal approaches to modelling argumentation provide ways to present arguments and counterarguments, and to evaluate which arguments are, in a formal sense, warranted. While these proposals allow for evaluating object-level arguments and ...
Computing Arguments and Attacks in Assumption-Based Argumentation
CaSAPI (Credulous and Skeptical Argumentation: Prolog Implementation) 3.0 determines the acceptability of claims, using the general-purpose framework of assumption-based argumentation, under the semantics of admissible extensions. This framework reduces ...
Comments
Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
June 2019
312 pages
ISBN:9781450367547
DOI:10.1145/3322640
Copyright © 2019 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
- Univ. of Montreal: University of Montreal
- AAAI
- IAAIL: Intl Asso for Artifical Intel & Law
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 17 June 2019
Check for updates
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
ICAIL '19
Sponsor:
ICAIL '19: Seventeenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law
June 17 - 21, 2019
QC, Montreal, Canada
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 69 of 169 submissions, 41%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 121Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)13
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 08 Mar 2025
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in