The purpose of determining causation in law is to identify responsibility. If we rely solely on counterfactual conditionals to establish a “conditional causal relationship,” we risk including overly remote or accidental factors within the scope of liability.

Therefore, the concept of “adequate causation,” judged according to general life experience and ordinary circumstances, is introduced to apply stricter standards and exclude those who should not be held liable.

However, the notion of “adequacy” still carries ambiguity and paradoxes (such as the idea that “if one lives, one will eventually die”), making it difficult to define culpability solely on this basis. Is there a better theoretical approach that could more effectively achieve the legal goal of assigning responsibility?

✉️ Collaboration inquiries: [email protected]
☕️ Support the show: https://pay.soundon.fm/podcasts/f53cfad4-ca02-4b09-9b3a-ec899eef5ff8
🎧 Mandarin version available (華語版本): 如果你習慣用華語收聽，歡迎在各大平台搜尋《前方的轉角》
--
Hosting provided by SoundOn

Ver todos los episodios