The use of epidemiological evidence in UK tort law

Abstract

The UK courts are highly sceptical of epidemiological evidence. Consequently, they are reluctant to rely on such evidence in determining issues of causation in personal injury cases. This chapter is divided into four main sections. Section I examines the judicial reasoning in XYZ v. Schering Health Care Ltd, which reflects a lack of judicial understanding of epidemiology as a discipline. Section II addresses through an analysis of Sienkiewicz v. Greif three common judicial misconceptions of epidemiology: (1) that epidemiology is concerned solely with “naked statistics”, (2) that epidemiologists treat evidence of a “doubling of the risk” as sufficient proof of causation, and (3) that if accepted in court, epidemiological evidence is determinative of legal causation. Section III demonstrates how epidemiology could help UK courts by providing the courts with statistical information that is scientifically robust and pertinent to the causal issues at stake and by providing the courts with guidance on how to use and interpret such information.