Welcome to the new version of CaltechAUTHORS. Login is currently restricted to library staff. If you notice any issues, please email coda@library.caltech.edu
Published September 20, 2017 | Submitted
Report Open

On the Meaning of the Preponderance Test in Judicial Regulation of Chemical Hazard

Page, Talbot

Abstract

As usually defined, the preponderance test is a standard of proof which directs the jury to accept the plaintiff's version of the disputed facts if they are more probably true than not. But what happens when the most important disputed "facts" are judgments about probability? This paper offers an interpretation of the preponderance test which can be applied to this situation. In the example of the paper, B is the benefit of a drug, C is the health cost if it is a teratogen, and p is the probability of teratogenicity. The contested "fact" is the magnitude of p, the probability of harm. In the interpretation considered by the paper, the jury finds in favor of the plaintiff if the jury decides that it is more likely than not that p is greater than B/C. This definition of the preponderance test does not quite minimize expected costs, and compared with expected cost minimization it is likely to be biased toward under-protection when the health costs are high compared with the benefits. But when the mean and median of the second order probability of p are the same, the definition coincides with expected cost minimization. It is also shown that under a criterion of expected cost minimization, contrary to Posner, judicial error costs are not in general the same and the number of erroneous judgments favoring undeserving plaintiffs is not likely to be the same as the number of erroneous judgments favoring undeserving defendants.

Additional Information

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation and the Mellon Foundation, The paper owes much to Jim Krier, who generously contributed much of the first two sections. Published as Page, Talbot. "On the meaning of the preponderance test in judicial regulation of chemical hazard." Law and Contemporary Problems 46.3 (1983): 267-283.

Attached Files

Submitted - sswp515.pdf

Files

sswp515.pdf
Files (335.4 kB)
Name Size Download all
md5:1206da92aa2564e23fb9a29e25914624
335.4 kB Preview Download

Additional details

Created:
August 19, 2023
Modified:
January 14, 2024