Skip Navigation


Law, Probability and Risk Advance Access originally published online on October 17, 2007
Law, Probability and Risk 2008 7(1):15-34; doi:10.1093/lpr/mgm037
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
7/1/15    most recent
mgm037v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dominici, F.
Right arrow Articles by Zambelli-Weiner, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.

The role of epidemiology in the law: a toxic tort litigation case

Francesca Dominici{dagger}

Department of Biostatistics, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA

Shira Kramer and April Zambelli-Weiner

Epidemiology International, Owings Mills, MD 21117, USA

{dagger} Email: fdominic{at}jhsph.edu

Received on 20 April 2007. Revised on 20 August 2007. Accepted on 23 August 2007.


  Abstract

Toxic tort cases provide a natural framework for an in-depth illustration and an application of statistical methods for small-scale studies of putative sources of hazard. In this paper, we describe the aspects of a toxic tort case that focussed on quantifying the strength of evidence concerning the hypothesis that carcinogenic substances emitted from an industry source were associated with a statistically significant higher than expected incidence rate of neuroblastoma in children. We first present the epidemiological analysis carried out by the plaintiffs' experts (Drs P1, P2 and P3). We then summarize the key critiques by the defense experts (Drs D1, D2 and D3) followed by the plaintiff's reply. In the context of toxic torts, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the exposure resulting from the defendants' conduct is more likely than not causally related to the injury. We use this toxic tort case to identify common criticisms of the defense experts that take advantage of the complexity in evaluating causation in toxic torts. In the discussion, we summarize the common defense positions and question whether such questions are scientifically appropriate.

Keywords: toxic tort; Standardized incidence ratio (SIR); Poisson distribution


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.