Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, San Diego, 1997. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 356-362).

Over the past few decades analyses of causation have proliferated in almost immeasurable abundance, and with two things in common; firstly, they make much of counterfactual dependence, and secondly, none of them successfully handle all the pre-emption cases. In this thesis, I fore-mostly investigate David Lewis’ promising counterfactual analyses of causation (along with many others), and provide an extensive examination of pre-emption cases. I also offer my own counterfactual analysis of causation, which I argue can handle the problematic pre-emption cases, and therein succeed where so many other prominent analyses of causation have failed. I then conclude with some morals for the continuing debate.

Causation and foreseeability in private law The issue of this thesis is the causation and foreseeability in private law. The aim of this diploma thesis is to provide comprehensive view of both presented legal institutes and their significance in law. This thesis especially focuses on detailed analysis of procedure of proving the causation and introduces the most significant issues arising from this proceeding. Introduction is aimed at the function and especially at detailed definition of the term causality not only in law, but also in the area of natural sciences. It defines the term foreseeability in the same way. Moreover, it defines conditions that considerably affect foreseeability. Consequently, it aims to provide the relation between foreseeability and causation. This thesis also deals with the significance of causation from the perspective of legal liability. In this context, it mentions the issue of causally relevant conditions. On this basis, this paper tends to its core which consists of detailed analysis of methods of proving the factual causation. Universally accepted method of proving factual causation is considered the 'conditio sine qua non' test. However, this test is found to be ineffective in cases of causal uncertainty. Therefore there are more effective instruments for equitable...