The traditional, intuitively appealing, test for causation in tort law, known as 'the but-for test' has been subjected to what are widely believed to be devastating criticisms by Tony Honor., and Richard Wright, amongst others. I argue that the but-for test can withstand these criticisms. Contrary to what is now widely believed, there is no inconsistency between the butfor test and ordinary language, commonsense, or sound legal principle.
|Number of pages||13|
|Journal||Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy|
|Publication status||Published - 2002|