Hasan Badini; Farzaneh Motevaseliyan
Abstract
One of the common difficulties in the field of environmental torts is the proof of causation between the tortious conduct of the tortfeasor and the damage suffered by the victim. This problem, according to the principles of economic analysis of tort law, results in denial of tort claims which itself, ...
Read More
One of the common difficulties in the field of environmental torts is the proof of causation between the tortious conduct of the tortfeasor and the damage suffered by the victim. This problem, according to the principles of economic analysis of tort law, results in denial of tort claims which itself, encourages the tortfeasor to externalize costs of his hazardous activities, dilutes his incentives to reduce environmental risks in an optimal way, and finally, disturbs the deterrent function of tort law. On the contrary, in recent decades, it is widely accepted that the preventive principle plays a crucial role in sustainable development. The importance of preventive approach in environmental policies requires the tort law –as one of the means of such policies –to serve the aim of deterrence as well as compensation. With these points in mind, this paper first clarifies the three main situations in which the proof of causation is problematic. It then tries to analyze possible solutions of those situations, using an economic perspective and to propose the most compatible solution with deterrence and efficiency, namely using the proportional liability in specific categories of environmental accidents.
