Justice in epistemic gaps: The ‘proof paradox’ revisited

This paper defends the heretical view that sometimes we ought to assign legal liability based on statistical evidence alone. Recent literature focuses potential unfairness defending party if rely bare statistics. Here, I show capitulating in response ‘epistemic gaps’—cases where there is a group of harmers but an absence individuating evidence—can amount serious injustice against who has been harmed. Drawing prominent civil law litigation involving pharmaceutical and industrial negligence, overall aim illustrate moral pitfalls stemming from popular idea it never appropriate statistics when settling dispute.