Opinion ID: 1919140
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: general versus specific causation

Text: [5,6] In Carlson v. Okerstrom , [11] we alluded to the distinction between general causation and specific causation. Other courts have similarly distinguished between general and specific causation. In a toxic tort case, general causation addresses whether a substance is capable of causing a particular injury or condition in a population, while specific causation addresses whether a substance caused a particular individual's injury. [12] To prevail, a plaintiff must show both general and specific causation. But a court should first consider whether a party has presented admissible general causation evidence before considering the issue of admissible specific causation evidence. [13] The Federal Judicial Center's Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence (Reference Manual) [14] explains that epidemiology focuses on general causation rather than specific causation. [15] Plaintiffs do not always need epidemiological studies to prove causation. [16] Yet, frequently, plaintiffs find epidemiological studies indispensable in toxic tort cases when direct proof of causation is lacking. [17]