Boden L I, Miyares J R, Ozonoff D
Boston University School of Public Health, MA 02118.
Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(10):1019-29. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(88)90297-3.
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)
美国确定环境疾病责任的制度要求原告证明被告是其疾病的法律原因。因果关系的判定在对抗性环境中进行。纠纷双方就因果关系向非专业法官或陪审团提交证据，由他们负责决定被告是否应承担法律责任。在伤害案件中，这通常意味着提供导致原告伤害的具体、明确事件或状况的证据。环境疾病通常呈现出截然不同的情形，即接触有毒物质与原告疾病之间的关系存在相当大的不确定性。关于这种不确定联系的科学证据往往是案件的关键部分。对科学证据的依赖似乎给原告带来了几乎无法克服的因果关系证明难题。法律要求原告证明，若没有被告的行为，伤害就不会发生。这一严格要求似乎与许多环境疾病成因的大量科学不确定性不相容。法律因果关系的另一个特点是它基于共同经验，容易被可能成为因果关系最终裁决者的普通公民理解。另一方面，环境疾病成因的科学解释可能无法借鉴共同经验，也可能缺乏说服非专业决策者所需的直观吸引力。由于非专业法官或陪审团难以理解因果关系的科学证据，且由于对抗性地使用对因果关系有截然不同观点的专家，预计原告在环境责任案件中证明因果关系会有很大困难。然而，美国法律制度似乎已适应了原告在满足正式说服责任方面的困难。法院允许陪审团在运用自身经验和信念判定因果关系时有相当大的自由裁量权，只要有一些科学证据支持原告的主张。美国环境疾病责任制度因原告难以证明因果关系而受到一些人的批评，也因原告在没有能让科学家信服的证据的情况下就能胜诉而受到另一些人的批评。（摘要截选至400字）
