Relationship Of Civil Liability And Scientificness In The Judicial Field

Relationship of civil liability and scientificness in the judicial field

In order to clarify the discussion that was mentioned in the title of this text and compare it with the movie "Civil Action" we must give a small story of this, it is based on the life of eight families living in Wobum, Massachusetts, who decide to undertake a Judicial process against two corporations that have a lot.

To start the litigation, the lawyer specialized in injuries, who is called Jan Schlichtmann, takes care of this case so complicated, but has a bad reputation because he is not interested in feelings, the repair of damages totally, but is fixed Especially in the money that the defendants must possess, however that reputation is not so bad, since in a higher percentage this lawyer has managed to win the cases without mixing the feelings.

The families do not ask for an amount of money, but that it is recognized that multimillion -dollar companies have caused these damages and decontamine the area, despite that the victims’ lawyer decides to go to the lawsuit requesting a remuneration of high money and the judge then then decides to request the evidence with which the damages presented to families are supported and that also support the claims, that is when that is complicated.

The responsibility as you should know contains three essential elements: the damage, the causal link and the imputation.

According to Juan Carlos Henao “it is not an intellectual need or a word and concept game.

It is about taking a position regarding the way civil liability should be studied: first the damage must be studied, then the imputation finally, the justification of why it must be repaired, that is, the foundation.”(Henao, 1998)

The damage must be demonstrable, here in this case the problem arises because there were no previous studies, so the lawyer of the plaintiffs decides to put all their capital to achieve the studies that evaluated that if they had contaminated the water and that when they ingested this this caused the problems that some residents suffered and suffered.

The causal link is the relationship or link between material realization or the fact that determines the damage and damage. In other words we can say that the causal link is a cause-effect relationship or a causal connection, that is, the possibility of linking a harmful result to a person.

Finally, the imputation is what can be attributed to one person for the damage that caused him to another.

I resorted to explaining the above because there is also an impact “… of the aforementioned distinction between causal link (or material or factual causality) and objective imputation (also called causal imputation and, more improperly, legal causality) affects precisely the possibility of cassation control In each of those areas. The causal relationship is alien to legal criteria, so it constitutes a matter of fact that must be proven and whose appreciation must be subject to the consideration of the courts of instance. On the contrary, the application of objective imputation criteria is clearly a matter of law, and therefore reviewable in cassation.”(Arcos Vieira, 2005.) With reference to this case, the courts of instance were used through the appeal that was carried out by the environmental agency because scientific studies were carried out by the plaintiff and these are a matter of fact and taking into account that not only the evidence were based on law.

It was previously mentioned that the entire litigation for Jan Schlichtmann is complicated when the judge requests studies and that is when you go to talk about the scientific scientificness of the scientific evidence, as we know all the judges are different and as this film was set for the 80s It is time to keep in mind that at that time in the United States always won the companies that were demanded due to 4 elements that were taken into account in that legislation and that these days some laws have it to make it applicable, which are:

1. The refutability or susceptibility of empirical contrast of the methods or theories used by the expert or scientist.
2. Review by others, for the publication or acceptance of the same method.
3. The known error range or the one that is possible.
4. The general or broad acceptance of the expert or scientific community.

And as can be seen in the film, the lawyer Jan Schlichtmann if he did the studies, however the causal relationship was not proven, due to how it was already explained although the studies were contributed, they had no other livelihood and the procedural strategy is also contradicted To the counterpart, in this case Mr. Jan Schlichtmann let himself be carried more because of the amount of money he was losing in scientific studies, due to the pressure of losing the lawsuit and forgetting to support the evidence before the judge.

It is not enough to have the evidence, but to know how to defend it in the process, so it is evident that the judge makes the exclusion of the evidence provided that are the scientific studies carried out, because it does not have the aforementioned elements, therefore there is no criterion of admission or assessment of expert or scientific tests.

To clarify the above, it should be known that science during the years has been growing and has also reached the legal field, “that impact of science on all probative activity must be accompanied by a certain judicial control that allow the use of relevant information and reliable for the rational determination of the factual premises of judicial reasoning. An (epistemological) objective shared by all legal systems, regardless of their possible differences. We can assume, in any case, that with these controls we must have a greater probability of success in the decision or materially correct judicial decision making.”(Rojas, 2014)

“It is very important to distinguish those two criteria to be valued in scientific evidence (although not only in these): relevance and reliability.

The basic criterion to consider so that certain information is part of the evidence that can prove a factual proposition is relevance ”(Rojas, 2014)

“On the other hand, it is worth asking under what conditions the judge could accept as reliable a scientific evidence. In legal literature, many times the term "reliability" is usually used as a synonym for "credibility", "authenticity", "acceptability" or "validity", despite being terms that could have different meanings and implications.

Yes, we consider, for example, the notion of "credibility" as a criteria for admitting or to assign probative value to the scientific evidence presented (and emphasized scientific evidence, or if you want the expert tests in general, because I am referring to exclusively to the use of such criteria in order to assess these, and not other types of evidence for which the criteria mentioned could have a diverse meaning), generally the credibility of the expert is limited to considering the relationship of the scientist with the parties or the Psychological trust that the expert "inspires" the judge, that is, as an eminently motivational and non -cognitive issue. The use of this type of criteria has possibly been promoted in some way because scientific knowledge enters the process in the form of statements or statements and, therefore, are valued with schemes similar to those used for the testimonial evidence or the confessional test (Igartua , 2007).”(Rojas, 2014)

In conclusion of all of the above, it can be said that everything will depend on the judge who attends the case although of course these must already be governed by laws, jurisprudence, principles, among others. In the case in which the causal relationship is intended to prove scientifically, it is best Have other visions and can go beyond any reasonable doubt, with this case and the comparison of current law can be seen that although the law has currently advanced with respect to technology and science, many legal gaps are still evidenced and there have been no It could combine many sciences or other subjects with the right because they are different knowledge that must be adapted to get them to fit.

Bibliography

• Vieira arches, m. L. (2005.). Civil liability: causal link and objective imputation in jurisprudence. (With special reference to omission responsibility). In m. L. Vieira arches, civil liability: causal link and objective imputation in jurisprudence. (With special reference to omission responsibility) (p. 264 pages.).
• Henao, j. C. (1998). THE DAMAGE. In j. C. Henao, the damage (pages. 36-37). Bogotá: u exterminated.
• Rojas, c. V. (2014). On the scientific of the scientific evidence in the judicial process. LEGAL PSYCHOLOGY YEARBOOK, 65-73.