Evaluation of causal arguments in law: The case of overdetermination

In many legal disputes, determining and evaluating cause-in-fact is a crucial step in the liability attribution. It is, however, difficult and opaque. In this paper, we analyse the cases of overdetermination, where there is more than one cause for the outcome. The proposed framework (FCA) employs logic-based argument modelling. It distinguishes individual contributors in overdetermination cases by using a new set of critical questions based on argument schemes from effect-to-cause. To illustrate the use of the FCA, the Heneghan v Manchester Dry Docks lung cancer case with multi-party contributions is analysed.