Within the law, the traditional test for attributing causal responsibility is the counterfactual "but-for" test, which asks whether the injury complained of would have occurred but for the defendant's wrongful act. This definition generally conforms to common intuitions regarding causation, but gives non-intuitive results in situations of overdetermination with two or more potential causes present. To handle such situations, Wright defined the NESS Test of causal contribution, described as a formalization of the concept underlying common intuitions of causal attribution. Halpem and Pearl provide a definition of actual causality in the mathematical language of structural models that yields counterintuitive results in certain scenarios. We present a new definition that appears to correct those problems and explain its greater conformity with the intuitions underlying the NESS test.
展开▼
