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


Comparative Causation

Publication Date


Document Type


Place of Original Publication

Fordham Law Review

Publication Information

60 Fordham Law Review 913 (1992)

Included in

Torts Commons


COinS Robert N. Strassfeld Faculty Bio