Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Deprecated: Implicit conversion from float 209.6 to int loses precision in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 534
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\27055545
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 J+Prev+Med+Public+Health
2016 ; 49
(2
): 80-96
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
Proving Causation With Epidemiological Evidence in Tobacco Lawsuits
#MMPMID27055545
Lee SG
J Prev Med Public Health
2016[Mar]; 49
(2
): 80-96
PMID27055545
show ga
Recently, a series of lawsuits were filed in Korea claiming tort liability
against tobacco companies. The Supreme Court has already issued decisions in some
cases, while others are still pending. The primary issue in these cases is
whether the epidemiological evidence submitted by the plaintiffs clearly proves
the causal relationship between smoking and disease as required by civil law.
Proving causation is difficult in tobacco lawsuits because factors other than
smoking are involved in the development of a disease, and also because of the
lapse of time between smoking and the manifestation of the disease. The Supreme
Court (Supreme Court Decision, 2011Da22092, April 10, 2014) has imposed some
limitations on using epidemiological evidence to prove causation in tobacco
lawsuits filed by smokers and their family members, but these limitations should
be reconsidered. First, the Court stated that a disease can be categorized as
specific or non-specific, and for each disease type, causation can be proven by
different types of evidence. However, the concept of specific diseases is not
compatible with multifactor theory, which is generally accepted in the field of
public health. Second, when the epidemiological association between the disease
and the risk factor is proven to be significant, imposing additional burdens of
proof on the plaintiff may considerably limit the plaintiff's right to recovery,
but the Court required the plaintiffs to provide additional information such as
health condition and lifestyle. Third, the Supreme Court is not giving greater
weight to the evidential value of epidemiological study results because the Court
focuses on the fact that these studies were group-level, not individual-level.
However, group-level studies could still offer valuable information about
individual members of the group, e.g., probability of causation.
free
free
free
