Huber, Ch. 9.  'Coupling' and 'causal linkage'

1) What does the parable of the motherless calf have to do with legal responsibility?
How does it apply to the case of Joan Berry who claimed that Charlie Chaplin fathered her child?

What is meant by 'causal linkage' as opposed to 'cause-in-fact'?

2) How does this dubious linkage apply in the case against Robins, maker of the Dalkon shield?

What is the nature of PID, pelvic inflammatory disease?

Blamed for causing PID, what was the nature of Robins' defense?
Buried at the botton of p. 156, Huber acknowledges the source of infection; 
what was it about the Dalkon shield that made it more dangerous?
 

And how does this dubious linkage apply in the cases against Manville, the asbestos supplier?


3) When Huber wrote this book, he could say  
'no jury [has]...ever awarded damages against a tobacco company." 
That has changed. How, do you suppose, Huber would have regarded that development?


Ch. 10.  What are 'Cargo Cults'?

And how does this anthropological perspective help us to understand 'liability science'?

What are the costs to our culture of such dubious liability?