Abstract
The UK courts are highly sceptical of epidemiological evidence. Consequently, they are reluctant to rely on such evidence in determining issues of causation in personal injury cases. This chapter is divided into four main sections. Section I examines the judicial reasoning in XYZ v. Schering Health Care Ltd, which reflects a lack of judicial understanding of epidemiology as a discipline. Section II addresses through an analysis of Sienkiewicz v. Greif three common judicial misconceptions of epidemiology: (1) that epidemiology is concerned solely with “naked statistics”, (2) that epidemiologists treat evidence of a “doubling of the risk” as sufficient proof of causation, and (3) that if accepted in court, epidemiological evidence is determinative of legal causation. Section III demonstrates how epidemiology could help UK courts by providing the courts with statistical information that is scientifically robust and pertinent to the causal issues at stake and by providing the courts with guidance on how to use and interpret such information.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barker v. Corus (UK) plc. (2006). UKHL 20.
Barnes, D. W. (2001). Too many probabilities: Statistical evidence of tort causation. Law and Contemporary Problems, 64, 191–212.
Broadbent, A. (2011). Epidemiological evidence in proof of specific causation. Legal Theory, 17, 237–278.
Fairchild v. Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd. (2002). UKHL 22.
Falini, B., Pulford, K., Pucciarini, A., Carbone, A., De Wolf-Peeters, C., Cordell, J., et al. (1999). Lymphomas expressing ALK fusion protein(s) other than NPM-ALK. Blood, 94, 3509–3515.
Gold, S. (1986). Causation in toxic torts: Burdens of proof, standards of persuasion and statistical evidence. Yale Law Journal, 96, 376–402.
Goldberg, R. (2011). Using scientific evidence to resolve causation problems in product liability: UK, US and French experiences. In R. Goldberg (Ed.), Perspectives on causation (pp. 149–178). Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.
Gregg v. Scott. (2002). EWCA Civ 1471; (2005). UKHL 2.
Hotson v. East Berkshire Area Health Authority. (1987). A.C. 750.
McGhee v. National Coal Board. (1973). 1 W.L.R. 1.
McTear v. Imperial Tobacco Limited. (2005). CSOH 69.
Miller, C. (2006). Causation in personal injury: Legal or epidemiological common sense. Legal Studies, 26, 544–569.
Novartis Grimsby Limited v. Cookson. (2007). EWCA (Civ) 1261.
Rothman, K. J., Greenland, S., & Lash, T. L. (2008). Modern epidemiology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.
Shortell v. BICAL Construction Ltd. (Liverpool District Registry, 16 May 2008).
Sienkiewicz v. Greif. (2011). UKSC 10.
Steele, S., & Ibbetson, D. (2011). More grief on uncertain causation in tort. Cambridge Law Journal, 70(2), 451–468.
Wright, R. W. (2008). Liability for possible wrongs: Causation, statistical probability and the burden of proof. Loyola Los Angeles Law Review, 41, 1295–1343.
XYZ v. Schering Health Care Ltd. (2002). EWHC (QB)1420.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
McIvor, C. (2013). The Use of Epidemiological Evidence in UK Tort Law. In: Loue, S. (eds) Forensic Epidemiology in the Global Context. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6738-0_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6738-0_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-6737-3
Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-6738-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)