• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.11 no.2
• /
• pp.127-170
• /
• 2008

This paper aims to present solutions to three intriguing puzzles on causation that Benardete presents by considering the results of infinite series of telescoping events. The main conceptual tool used in the solutions is the notion of collective causation, what many events cause collectively. It is straightforward to apply the notion to resolve two of the three puzzles. It does not seem as straightforward to apply it to the other puzzle. After some preliminary clarifications of the situation that Benardete describes to present the puzzle, however, we can apply the notion to resolve it as well.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.15
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this paper is to consider how to decide the cause of loss or damage to the transport goods when maritime accident occurs. In marine insurance, the underwriter is liable for any loss or damage proximately caused by a risk insured(MIA Art.55). So it is very important to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage to ascertain whether it is to be recoverable under the policy. But there is no definite conception or rule what is the proximate cause. It was left to the tribunal as a question of fact. In this paper, I will suggest the general rules to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage of the transport goods in marine insurance. First, in MIA 1906, there is the rule of proximate causation and it has been established the effective causation by cases since 1918. Second, in Institute Cargo Clauses(B) & (C), there are rules of considerably relaxed standards to determine the causation of loss of or damage using the "attributable to" and "caused by" basis. Third, it is noted, under the complex causation situation, there are difference basises to decide the liability of underwriters between the case of successive occurrence of single risk and the case of concurrent occurrence of several risks. Forth, in practice, it couldn't be ascertained the underwrier's liability by a definite rule and it should be fully considered the circumstances and conditions of the loss.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.179-211
• /
• 2007

To succeed the claim of medical malpractice litigation, the patient as a plaintiff should establish the medical fault of a physician as a defendant, and the causation between the fault and damages. Because of the extraordinary nature of medical province, however, this application of a legal principles is rigorous with the patient. In addition, given the causation between the validation of physician's fault and damage is not attested, patient is not awarded anything. In order to overcome a difficulty of patient's verification and ensure the right to fair process, it was demonstrated the lightening of burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation and the acceptance of the responsibility for an illegal act in a prescribed range in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. This paper deals with the judgement of causation and burden of proof in medical malpractice litigation, and the acceptance of responsibility in the absence of the causation between the physician's fault and damage. Also, this study recommends a tendency of our precedent through the comparative case method of ours and Japan.

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.105
• /
• pp.269-290
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibility of backwards causation. For study, this paper was divided into four views as follows: The first view was sometimes suggested by the people such as M. Dummett who distinguished observers from behaviors. According to observers' view, backwards causation is impossible, whereas behaviors' view possible. However, in a real or genuine sense, it is incorrect for us to argue for impossibility of backwards causation from the observer aspect. The second view was supported by J. H. Schmidt. He analyzed the possibility of backwards causation in terms of macro and micro level analysis about the causal events. According to micro level analysis, backwards causation is possible, but macro level analysis impossible. Usually the latter makes the former something miraculous. Under the macro level analysis, backwards causation, at first, seems to be miraculous phenomena which belongs to the micro level analysis. The third view had to do with physical equation, and the fourth view physical phenomena, respectively. John Earman argued for the backwards causation by the transformation from Lorentz­-Dirac equation to a second-order integro-differential one in the field of electrodynamic acceleration. His argument was criticized because of his misunderstanding about the relationship between two equations. On the other hand, Phil Dowe defended a version of Reichenbach's own theory about the direction of causation founded on the fork asymmetrical causal relation. However his view was different from Reichenbach's because the former defended the backwards causation model of Bell phenomena in quantum mechanics. On the contrary, Reichenbach put stressed on the priority of cause in the causal process. Subjectivism has recently been defended by H. Price, under the label of perspectivism. According to him, in a certain sense causal asymmetry is not in the world, but is rather a product of our own asymmetric perspective on the world. He also suggested causal net, the symmetry of microphysics, and so on. As mentioned above, there are many kind of suggestions of backwards causation. However none of them replaced objectively the main streams of the direction of causal process. The main stream has been usually defended by pragmatical ground. That is, effects do not precede their causes although causes cannot be without their effects.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.179-218
• /
• 2006

To succeed the claim of medical negligence, the plaintiff should establish the medical profession's fault, and the causation between the fault and damages. The faults are judged on lege artis, which is based on expert witness. However, judges often infer the faults and causations from circumstantial evidences and patients' injuries. This presumptions depend on the law of nature(Erfahrungsgesetz). The law of nature can explain the typical development of the event. If the circumstantial evidences were in accordance with that, the faults and causations would be able to be recognized by the judges. Therefore the standards of comparison such as lege artis or the law of nature play an important role for medical negligence liabilities to be imputed to doctors or hospitals. The factual elements necessary to assume the fault is similar to those of the causation, for the concept of the fault is correlated with that of the causation. The elements include the temporal and spatial proximity between damages and defendant's medical treatments, no existence of other causations, the probability of bed results developed by the medical treatments, and so on. These enable the fault and causation to be assumed at the same times.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.8 no.2
• /
• pp.195-204
• /
• 2007

It is a general principle that the plaintiff takes burden of proof about negligence and causation in a civil compensation litigation. And it is the same in a medical malpractice lawsuit. Korean courts have made diverse efforts to mitigate the plaintiff's duty to prove in medical malpractice lawsuits under the name of justice and impartiality. One of those theoretical attempt is 'presumption of causation'. The Supreme Court, since 1995, has developed a new logic for the theory of 'presumption of causation' which is characterized by a phrase "layman's common sense". The Court presumes the defendant's negligence and causation when the plaintiff alleges and proves the facts which can be pointed out and expressed by a layman with common sense. And if the defendant fails to prove that the result was caused by other fact than own medical activities, the defendant shall be defeated. I realize that this theory has problem for justice and impartiality. I would say that two fators should be considered and added to this logic. First,are defendant's acts generally belonging to gross negligence which would cause that kind of bad result? Second, is it recognized that there would be the causation generally and statistically between the cause and the result?

• Korean Journal of Logic
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.133-153
• /
• 2015

In his paper "Structural Equations Approach to Token Causation: The Active Route Account Revisited" Professor Sungsu Kim defends the active route account. The active route account is the theory of causation which overcomes counterexamples to the counterfactual theories of causation, while maintaining the counterfactual theorist's essential intuition that an effect depends counterfactually on a cause. Unfortunately, there are counterexamples to the active route account itself. Professor Sungsu Kim attempts to defend the active route account by rebutting those counterexamples. In this paper, I argue that his defense of the active route account is not successful.

• Journal of the Ergonomics Society of Korea
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.241-248
• /
• 2010

In accident analysis, it is essential to understand the causal pathways of the accident. Although numerous accident models have been developed to help analysts understand how and why an accident occurs, most of them do not include all elements related to the accident in various fields. Thus analysis of human error accidents in railway operations using these existing models may be possible, but inevitably incomplete. For a more thorough analysis of the accidents in railway operations, a more exhaustive model of accident causation is needed. This paper briefly reviews four recent accident causation models, and proposes a new model that overcomes the limitations of the existing models for the analysis of human error accidents in railway operations. In addition, the usefulness and comprehensiveness of the proposed model is briefly tested by explaining 12 railway accident cases with the model. The proposed accident causation model is expected to improve understanding of how and why an accident/incident occurs, and help prevent analysts from missing any important aspect of human error accidents in railway operations

• Journal of Korean Philosophical Society
• /
• v.105
• /
• pp.75-94
• /
• 2008

In philosophy of mind, both reductionism and deflationism claim that the problem of mental causation is overstated, but the reason why they claim that way is quite different. On the one hand, for deflationism, since the problem of mental causation is bogus problem we need to focus on epistemology or scientific explanation rather than metaphysics. On the other hand, although the proponents of nonreductionism seem to think of the principles of causal closure of the physical and causal exclusion proposed by Jaegwon Kim as tenable, they do not go with the reductive approach to the problem of mental causation. Instead they stay with the concept of supervenience to overcome mental causation problem that, reductionists think, leads us to the dilemma situation. Of course, deflationists do not think that supervenience is plausible not as much as supervenience physicalists think that it is. If so, in what way and how do deflationists regard the problem of mental causation as a bogus problem? In this paper, I shall examine the most plausible response to mental causation problem, the contemporary version of mind-body problem by critically discussing and clarifying matters concerning the problem.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.9 no.1
• /
• pp.165-196
• /
• 2008

Recently the Supreme Court held that "in cases in which a patient suffering from a mental disorder attempts to commit suicide, fails, and then succeeds in a subsequent attempt, the following circumstances must be present in order to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital with regards to taking care of the patient and the death of the patient; there must have existed negligence on the part of the hospital with regards to their failure to stop the 1stsuicide attempt, injurious aftereffects must have been caused to the patient by the1stsuicide attempt, and said aftereffects must have been the main cause for the 2nd successful suicide attemtp." This, in effect, lessens the requirements of past holdings of the Supreme Court which held that "to acknowledge reasonable causation between the negligence of the hospital and the patient that commits suicide, the patient must have experienced such severe physical and mental suffering from the previous attempt so that they could not help but choose to commit suicide". The fact that the Supreme Court did not clearly state such changes in their view on this matter should be corrected. Also, the fact that the court only held the hospital liable for damages of less than 50 million won, only calculating damages up to the point when the deceased passed, is inadequate compared to other cases and should be corrected.