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 concludes 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's fault under a strict liability standard and the plain- tiff's fault for failure to exercise reasonable care
Place of Original Publication
Fordham Law Review
60 Fordham Law Review 913 (1992)
Strassfeld, Robert N., "Causal Comparisons" (1992). Faculty Publications. 372.