Modelling Cause-in-Fact in Legal Cases through Defeasible Argumentation

We propose to model cause-in-fact in legal cases through fresh argumentation-theoretic notions of explanation and support, meant to capture the set of arguments that contribute to making a conclusion justified. This novel argumentation-based approach to causality in law goes beyond the traditional idea of a cause as a necessary antecedent condition (the conditio-sine-qua-non idea), to handle concurrent causal processes leading to overdetermination and preemption. It also provides sound analyses of cases involving omission and ennoblement. Finally, by relying on defeasible argumentation it can capture causal inferences based on defeasible generalisations, which are very often used in judicial reasoning. Through the analysis of causal puzzles in legal cases, we illustrate the framework's effectiveness in handling complex causal reasoning, and demonstrate its potential to support legal reasoners with structured and intuitive analysis.