Science and persuasion: environmental disease in U.S. courts.
The U.S. system for determining liability for environmental disease requires plaintiffs to demonstrate that the defendant was the legal cause of their illnesses. The determination of cause takes place in an adversary setting. Both sides in the dispute present evidence about causation to a lay judge or jury, who is responsible for deciding whether the defendant is legally responsible. In injury cases this generally means providing evidence of a specific, concrete event or condition that gave rise to the plaintiff's harm. Environmental disease usually presents a very different picture, one in which there is considerable uncertainty about the relationship between exposure to toxic substances and the plaintiff's disease. Scientific evidence about this uncertain link is often an essential part of the case. The reliance on scientific evidence appears to present almost insurmountable problems of proof of causation to the plaintiff. The law requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that, without the defendant's action, the harm would not have occurred. This strict requirement appears incompatible with the substantial scientific uncertainty about the cause of many environmental diseases. A second attribute of legal causation is that it is based on common experience, and is easily understood by lay citizens who are likely to be the final arbiters of causation. Scientific explanations of environmental disease causation, on the other hand, may not draw on common experience and may not have the intuitive appeal necessary to convince a lay decision-maker. Because scientific evidence of causation is difficult for a lay judge or jury to understand, and because of the adversary use of experts with very different opinions about causation, it might be expected that plaintiffs would have a great deal of difficulty demonstrating causation in environmental liability cases. However, the U.S. legal system appears to have accommodated to the plaintiff's difficulty in meeting the formal burden of persuasion. The courts allow juries considerable leeway in using their own experience and beliefs to determine causation, as long as there is some scientific evidence to support the plaintiff's contention. The U.S. environmental disease liability system has been criticized by some for plaintiffs' difficulty in proving causation and by others because plaintiffs can win cases without evidence that would be convincing to a scientist.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Boden
L I
LI
Boston University School of Public Health, MA 02118.
Miyares
J R
JR
Ozonoff
D
D
D015085:2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid / Q000506:poisoning; D015084:2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid / Q000506:poisoning; D000075182:Agent Orange; D004185:Disability Evaluation; D004785:Environmental Pollutants / Q000506:poisoning*; D004787:Environmental Pollution / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D007351:Insurance, Liability / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D000072317:Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins / Q000506:poisoning; D011640:Public Policy; D012307:Risk Factors; D014481:United States
D004785:Environmental Pollutants; D000072317:Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins; D015084:2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid; D000075182:Agent Orange; D015085:2,4,5-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid