Focusing on the multiple meanings of the statement "A was a more important cause of C than was B," Professor Strassfeld considers the feasibility of comparative causation as a means of apportioning legal responsibility for harms. He concludse that by combining two different interpretations of "more important cause"--judgments of comparative counterfactual similarity and the Uniform Comparative Fault Act approach of comparative responsibility--we can effectively make causal comparisons and avoid the effort to compare such incommensurables as the defendant's fault under a strict liability standard and the plaintiff's failt for failure to exercise reasonable care.
Robert N. Strassfeld,
60 Fordham L. Rev. 913
Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol60/iss5/4