I expect to be mostly absent until September.
Recent, not too long, Canadian and Commonwealth scholarship about causation issues in law, available for download from the Social Science Research Network at the URL indicated, includes:
Jane Stapleton, “Reflections on Common Sense Causation in Australia” in (2011) Torts in Commercial Law, eds. Degeling, Edelman and Goudkamp (Thomsons, 2011) 331-365. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2276809
Jane Stapleton, “Unnecessary Causes” (2013) 129 Law Quarterly Review 39-65. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2276779
Erik Knutsen, Coping with Complex Causation Information in Personal Injury Cases (2013) 41 Advocates Quarterly 149. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2263348
Erik Knutsen, “Five Problems with Personal Injury Litigation (and What to Do About It!)” (2013) 40 Advocates Quarterly 492. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2228331
Addendum: Canadian lawyers will, of course, have to remember that, according to the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no such thing as an “unnecessary cause” – at least where the issue is factual causation in tort – because factual causation is premised on necessity.
“The test for showing causation is the “but for” test. The plaintiff must show on a balance of probabilities that “but for” the defendant’s negligent act, the injury would not have occurred. Inherent in the phrase “but for” is the requirement that the defendant’s negligence was necessary to bring about the injury ― in other words that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant’s negligence. This is a factual inquiry. If the plaintiff does not establish this on a balance of probabilities, having regard to all the evidence, her action against the defendant fails.”
Clements v. Clements 2012 SCC 32, para. 8 [emphasis in original].
Some might also recall what Galileo is supposed to have said after he recanted.
Addendum – June 21, 2013
For those who’ve nothing else to do this summer – it’s now safe to go into the water: