Evidential Uncertainty in Causation in Negligence

Acknowledgements\nContents\nIntroduction\n1.\rTheoretical and Doctrinal Framework\n	I.\rThe Theoretical Basis of Negligence\n	II.\rThe Doctrinal Framework\n	III.\rConclusion\n2. Identifying the Proper Function  of Causation\n	Part I: Identifying the Function of Causation \rin Negligence\n	I.\rThe Demands on Causation\n	II.\rCausation in the Philosophy of Hume and Mill\n	Part II: Tests for Causation\n	I.\rComplexity and Plurality of Causes as \rNecessary and Sufficient Conditions\n	II.\rOvercoming Potential Problems with NESS\n	Part III:\rUsing NESS to Overcome Common Problems with Exceptional Legal Tests\n	I.\rThe Current State of the Wardlaw Test\n	II.\rDefining Damage: Divisibility of Damage \ror Divisibility of Trigger?\n	III.\rUsing NESS to Clarify the Material \rContribution to Harm Test\n	IV.\rConclusion\n3. Proof of Causation\n	I.\rStandards of Proof in Science and Law\n	II.\rEpidemiological Evidence\n	III.\rUsing (and Misusing) Epidemiological \rEvidence in Negligence\n	IV.\rConclusion\n4.\rLoss of a Chance\n	Part I: Loss of a Chance: Proportionate Recovery for Physical Harm\n	I.\rOrthodox Negligence Principles in \rHotson and Gregg\n	II.\rLoss of a Chance and the Balance of \rProbabilities Standard of Proof\n	Part II: The \'Lost Opportunity\'\r as Damage\n	I.The Patient\'s\r Autonomy Interest\n	II.\rOrthodox Application of the Remaining \rNegligence Doctrines\n5.\rThe Evidentiary Gap\n	I.\rDefining the Evidentiary Gap\n	II.\rEvidential Solutions: The Inferential Approach\n	III.\rRisk of Harm as the Gist of the Negligence \rAction: Barker v Corus (UK) plc71\n	IV. Theoretical Approaches to the \'Evidentiary Gap\'\n	V.\rConclusion\nConclusion\nBibliography\nIndex