Climate Liability after <i>Lliuya v RWE</i> : Causation and Duty Demystified

265 Abstract Around the world, plaintiffs exposed to climate-related harms or hazards are increasingly bringing tort claims against private corporations. Many argue that these lawsuits are dead on arrival because tort law is ill-equipped to address the complexities posed by climate change. In this article, I aim to demonstrate the opposite. I will show that causation is no longer an insurmountable hurdle and that plaintiffs stand a realistic chance of succeeding in court. Moreover, imposing a duty of care on major greenhouse gas (GHG) emitters is neither arbitrary nor unfair, but fully consistent with well-established tort doctrine and case law. Applying the principle of several liability, major GHG emitters should be held liable in proportion to their contribution to the climate-related harm or hazard suffered by the plaintiff. To build my argument, I draw on a prominent climate liability case from Germany that was recently decided: Lliuya v RWE – in which the court endorsed many of the arguments presented here and confirmed that major GHG emitters can, in principle, be held liable for climate-related harms and hazards. Since the concepts of causation and duty of care share a common core across jurisdictions, my analysis of German doctrine and case law will offer valuable insights for climate liability litigation around the world.