Sequence alone never establishes causation as a matter of law
Evidence
This form of reasoning represents a logical fallacy known as the post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this and therefore because of this) fallacy. — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1134
Categorization
- DEFINE: First-year torts and evidence classes hinge on this fallacy’s precise name and Latin formulation; worth locking down the exact definition.
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1134
- XREF: connects to: Shared context does not establish a causal or contractual connection between events — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 859; A single observed sequence may be arbitrary coincidence — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1129; Chronological sequence alone never proves causation — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 1130 (+4 more)
Broader Connections
- Circumstantial evidence cannot support legal liability when resting entirely on speculation
#corroborates(0.75) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 237 - Legal reasoning yields probability rather than absolute mathematical truths
#qualifies(0.50) — Ruggero J. Aldisert, Agatha D. Aldisert, Logic for Lawyers- A Guide to Clear…, 242