Civil Law and UAE: Networked Causation in Distributed Harm Scenarios

1. Meaning of Networked Causation

Networked causation describes a situation where damage does not result from one isolated act, but from the interaction of several persons, systems, events, decisions, or omissions.

A simple tort case may look like:

A's wrongful act → B's damage

A distributed-harm case may look like:

A's negligence → B's system failure → C's intervention → D's omission → final damage

Examples include:

AI and automated decision-making systems;

cybersecurity incidents;

financial and payment networks;

construction projects involving owner, consultant and contractor;

supply chains;

medical treatment involving several professionals;

cloud and software infrastructure;

environmental pollution;

transport and logistics systems.

The important legal question is not simply “Who was involved?” It is:

Which person's legally relevant conduct contributed to the damage, and is that contribution sufficient to attribute the damage to that person?

Under the current UAE Civil Transactions Law, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, Article 253 expressly addresses situations where multiple persons are responsible for the same harm. It permits liability according to each person's share and allows the court, where appropriate, to impose equal or joint-and-several liability. It also allows reduction or denial of compensation where the injured person contributed to or aggravated the harm. (UAE Legislation)

2. Current UAE Statutory Framework

The Civil Transactions Law under Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025, effective from 1 June 2026, provides the principal current framework.

For networked causation, the most important provisions are the rules dealing with:

harmful acts;

causation;

multiple responsible persons;

contributory conduct;

material and moral damage;

natural consequences of harmful conduct.

Article 253 — Multiple responsible persons

Article 253 provides essentially three important rules:

(UAE Legislation)

This provision is particularly important for distributed harm because the statute does not assume that every participant has automatically contributed equally.

3. Networked Causation vs Ordinary Causation

Ordinary causation

Negligent driver → collision → injury

Networked causation

Defective software
↓
Incorrect automated instruction
↓
Network failure
↓
Human operator response
↓
Equipment malfunction
↓
Physical accident
↓
Financial and personal damage

Here, several causal questions arise:

Who introduced the original defect?

Who knew or should have known about it?

Did another person's conduct contribute?

Was the later event foreseeable?

Did an independent event break the causal connection?

Did the claimant contribute to the damage?

Can the damage be divided between several causes?

Thus, chronological sequence is not the same as legal causation.

4. Elements of Networked Causation

A useful UAE civil-law analytical framework is:

1. Wrongful conduct

There must be a legally relevant act, omission, breach or other basis of responsibility.

2. Actual damage

The claimant must establish actual legally recognizable loss.

3. Causal contribution

The defendant's conduct must have contributed to the damage.

4. Legal attribution

The court determines whether that causal contribution is legally sufficient to impose liability.

5. Competing causes

The court examines other contributing events or persons.

6. Intervening causes

An independent event may weaken or break the causal connection.

7. Claimant contribution

The injured person's own conduct can affect compensation under Article 253.

8. Allocation

Where several persons are responsible, the court determines the appropriate allocation or form of liability.

5. The Difference Between Participation and Causation

This is one of the most important principles.

A person can participate in a network without legally causing the damage.

For example:

Company A develops software.
Company B operates the platform.
Company C provides cloud infrastructure.
Company D supplies defective data.

If an accident occurs, the court should not conclude:

“All four companies are liable because all four participated.”

Instead, it must examine the contribution of each participant.

Therefore:

Network participation ≠ automatic civil liability.

This principle is particularly important under current Article 253 because liability depends upon responsibility for the harm, rather than merely membership in the network. (UAE Legislation)

6. Concurrent Causes

Two or more independent factors may operate together.

Example:

Defective equipment + negligent maintenance → accident.

Neither factor necessarily needs to be the sole cause.

Similarly:

Consultant's error + contractor's error + defective material → structural damage.

The court may determine that several persons contributed to the same harm.

Article 253 is particularly suitable for such situations because it expressly allows the court to consider the respective shares of multiple responsible persons. (UAE Legislation)

7. Sequential Causes

A network can also produce a chain of events.

For example:

A negligently installs equipment
↓
Equipment overheats
↓
B's employee responds incorrectly
↓
Fire spreads
↓
C's property is destroyed

The court must determine whether B's conduct:

merely formed part of the original causal chain; or

constituted an independent intervening event sufficient to affect A's liability.

The mere existence of a later event does not automatically eliminate the earlier actor's responsibility.

8. Distributed Harm in AI Systems

Networked causation is particularly significant with AI.

Consider:

Developer → training data → AI model → platform → user → automated action → victim

Suppose an automated system produces a harmful recommendation.

Possible causal actors include:

software developer;

model provider;

data provider;

system integrator;

platform operator;

human supervisor;

end user.

The court would need to separate:

Technical causation

Did the system technically contribute to the event?

from:

Legal causation

Does the law attribute the resulting damage to the particular defendant?

This distinction is essential because technical contribution alone does not necessarily establish civil liability.

9. Distributed Causation in Construction

Construction is a classic networked-causation environment.

Possible participants include:

owner;

architect;

consultant;

contractor;

subcontractor;

materials supplier;

engineer;

inspector.

Example:

Architect's design error
+
Contractor's defective execution
+
Supplier's defective material
+
Consultant's failure to detect defect

Building damage

The court may need expert evidence to determine the technical contribution of each participant.

The legal question then becomes whether those technical contributions constitute legally relevant responsibility.

10. Distributed Causation in Medical Negligence

Medical treatment may involve:

First doctor → hospital → surgeon → laboratory → second hospital → rehabilitation provider.

A patient may suffer damage after several stages of treatment.

The existence of later treatment does not necessarily mean that the original medical error ceased to be causally relevant.

A modern UAE example is Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 377/2025, concerning medical negligence and serious consequences following medical treatment. It is useful as an illustration of how courts can examine complicated medical causation rather than treating the ultimate outcome as automatically attributable to one isolated event. Because this case arose under the previous statutory framework, it should be used as supporting jurisprudence rather than as a direct interpretation of Article 253 of the 2025 Law.

11. Case Law 1 — Federal Supreme Court, Civil Cassation No. 99, Judicial Year 16

This is an older Federal Supreme Court authority concerning civil responsibility, harmful conduct, damage and causation.

Principle

The existence of wrongful conduct alone does not finish the civil-liability analysis. The relationship between the conduct and the claimed damage must be legally established.

The authority is useful for distinguishing:

wrongful conduct → damage → legally relevant causal relationship.

Networked-causation significance

It supports the proposition that a complicated causal chain should not automatically result in unlimited liability.

A claimant must establish the legally relevant connection between the defendant's conduct and the damage.

Current-law qualification

This decision predates Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025. It should therefore be used for its underlying causal reasoning, not for obsolete statutory numbering. (Law Gratis)

12. Case Law 2 — Dubai Court of Cassation, Civil Appeal No. 309/2016

This is particularly important for multiple-cause and joint-liability analysis.

The Dubai Court of Cassation considered the former Article 291 framework for joint liability.

The important elements include:

fault attributable to each person;

contribution of that fault to the damage; and

unity of the harm.

(Law Gratis)

Importance

This case demonstrates that:

mere participation in the same transaction or project does not automatically establish joint liability.

Each person's conduct must have the required legal connection to the common damage.

Current relevance

The old Article 291 framework has been superseded by the current statutory framework, but the case remains valuable as historical UAE jurisprudence because current Article 253 expressly addresses multiple responsible persons. (UAE Legislation)

13. Case Law 3 — UAE Federal Supreme Court Appeals Nos. 652 and 654/2014

These environmental cases concerned allegations of environmental and health damage associated with industrial/crushing activities, including issues involving dust and vibration.

Principle

Environmental harm requires examination of:

the alleged harmful activity;

the actual damage;

evidence establishing the damage;

the causal relationship between activity and damage.

Networked-causation significance

Environmental damage is often distributed:

Industrial activity A

emissions

wind/weather

neighbouring activities

exposure
→ cumulative damage.

Therefore, courts must distinguish between:

mere geographical proximity;

actual causal contribution; and

legally attributable harm.

These decisions are older authorities and should be treated as historical guidance rather than direct applications of Article 253.

14. Case Law 4 — Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 37/2004

This authority is useful for the relationship between causation and intervening circumstances.

The case is cited in UAE civil-law discussions concerning circumstances that can affect the causal connection, including external events, third-party conduct and the injured party's own conduct.

Networked significance

It illustrates the principle that the causal chain must be legally assessed rather than mechanically followed.

For example:

A's negligence → B's conduct → C's damage

does not automatically mean A is liable for everything that happens after A's conduct.

The court must determine whether the later event altered the legal causal relationship.

Because the case predates the current Civil Transactions Law, it should be treated as historical jurisprudence. (Law Gratis)

15. Case Law 5 — Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 188/2009

This authority is useful in analysing causation in situations where several circumstances operate between the defendant's conduct and the eventual loss.

Principle

UAE civil liability analysis requires attention to the connection between the wrongful conduct and the actual damage rather than merely identifying an earlier event in the chronology.

Networked significance

It can be used when analysing:

intervening events;

indirect damage;

consequential loss;

competing causes;

third-party intervention.

Again, because this authority predates the 2025 Civil Transactions Law, it is best regarded as a supporting historical authority.

16. Case Law 6 — Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 880/2021

This authority is useful particularly for consequential and future damage.

The case has been used in UAE civil-law discussions concerning present and future damage and loss of opportunity.

Networked-causation importance

Distributed harm can produce consequences that appear much later.

For example:

Initial system defect
→ business interruption
→ customer loss
→ reduced market share
→ future financial loss.

The claimant cannot simply assume that every downstream consequence is recoverable.

The court must consider whether the claimed loss is sufficiently established and constitutes a legally relevant consequence.

The case therefore complements the causation analysis with the separate question of recoverable damage. (Law Gratis)

17. Case Law 7 — Dubai Court of Cassation Civil Appeal No. 377/2025

This is a more recent medical-negligence authority.

The case involved significant medical harm and questions concerning professional responsibility, subsequent medical consequences and compensation.

Networked-causation relevance

Medical cases demonstrate why a causal chain can contain several stages:

initial treatment
→ complication
→ subsequent treatment
→ further injury
→ final loss.

The existence of subsequent treatment does not necessarily make the original act irrelevant. The factual and expert evidence must be examined as a whole.

This makes the case useful as a modern example of multi-stage causation, although it should not be described as a direct Article 253 precedent.

18. Case Law 8 — Union Properties PJSC & Anor v Trinkler & Partners Ltd & Others [2026] ADGMCFI 0010

This is an ADGM Court decision and therefore should not be treated as binding precedent on mainland UAE courts.

The case involved complex allegations including fraud, negligent misstatement, unlawful means conspiracy and directors' duties. The judgment illustrates the difficulty of attributing responsibility where numerous actors, transactions and alleged acts are interconnected. The ADGM Court ultimately dismissed the claims against several defendants because the alleged wrongdoing had not been sufficiently substantiated against them. (3VB)

Networked-causation significance

It demonstrates an important principle:

Complexity of a network does not remove the claimant's burden of establishing the defendant's legally relevant involvement.

A court does not impose liability merely because a defendant is connected to a complicated chain of events.

19. Causation and Expert Evidence

Networked disputes frequently require technical evidence.

Examples:

But an important distinction must be maintained:

Expert determines technical causation; court determines legal causation.

An expert may say:

“Defective component X contributed 40% to the physical failure.”

The court still has to determine:

whether that contribution creates legal responsibility;

whether another event intervened;

whether another defendant is also responsible;

how Article 253 should operate.

20. Claimant's Contribution to Distributed Harm

Article 253(2) is especially important.

If the injured party:

contributed to the harm; or

aggravated the harm,

the court may reduce compensation or, in appropriate circumstances, refuse compensation. (UAE Legislation)

Example

A software company releases a defective system.

The customer receives multiple warnings but deliberately ignores them and continues using the system in an unsafe manner.

The resulting loss may involve:

Developer's conduct + customer's conduct.

The court must therefore consider the claimant's own contribution.

21. Joint and Several Liability vs Proportionate Liability

These concepts should not be confused.

Proportionate liability

The court identifies the respective contribution.

Example:

A = 50%
B = 30%
C = 20%

Equal liability

The court may determine that the responsible parties should bear equal responsibility where legally justified.

Joint and several liability

The court may impose joint-and-several responsibility where Article 253 permits it.

The current statute therefore gives the court flexibility rather than imposing one universal mathematical formula. (UAE Legislation)

22. Networked Causation and the "Last Actor" Problem

A common analytical mistake is:

“The last person acted immediately before the damage, therefore that person caused it.”

That is not necessarily correct.

Example:

Manufacturer supplies defective component
→ installer improperly installs it
→ operator receives inadequate instructions
→ maintenance contractor fails to detect problem
→ accident occurs.

The last actor may be only one part of the causal network.

The court must examine the contribution of all legally relevant actors.

23. Networked Causation and Intervening Events

An intervening event may be:

foreseeable human conduct;

unforeseeable third-party conduct;

force majeure;

claimant's own conduct;

independent technical failure;

subsequent medical treatment;

regulatory intervention.

The critical question is whether the intervening event is sufficiently independent and legally significant to affect attribution.

Thus:

Intervening event ≠ automatically broken causation.

The court must examine the circumstances of the particular case.

24. Networked Causation in Cybersecurity

Consider:

Software vulnerability
↓
Failure to patch
↓
Hacker intrusion
↓
Cloud compromise
↓
Data corruption
↓
Customer losses

Potentially relevant participants could include:

software developer;

system owner;

cybersecurity provider;

cloud provider;

administrator;

attacker.

The fact that the hacker performed the final wrongful act does not necessarily resolve every civil-law question.

The court would have to identify the legally relevant contributions of the other participants.

25. Networked Causation in Financial Systems

Financial harm may also be distributed:

Incorrect data
→ algorithmic decision
→ bank processing
→ payment intermediary
→ account transfer
→ investment loss.

Potential issues include:

contractual obligations;

professional negligence;

fraud;

system failure;

contributory conduct;

third-party intervention;

causation;

loss of opportunity;

mitigation.

The court should separate economic sequence from legal causation.

26. Networked Causation and Article 255

Article 255 provides an important limitation on compensation: compensation is assessed according to the loss suffered and lost profit provided that it is a natural consequence of the harmful act. (UAE Legislation)

This is extremely important for distributed harm.

Suppose:

A's system failure causes a one-day shutdown.

The claimant cannot automatically recover every later business loss merely because the losses occurred after the shutdown.

The claimant must establish the legally relevant connection between the harmful act and the claimed loss.

27. Practical Example

Suppose an autonomous delivery vehicle causes an accident.

The causal network is:

Manufacturer's software defect
↓
defective update
↓
vehicle's incorrect decision
↓
operator fails to intervene
↓
collision
↓
victim's injury
↓
medical expenses + lost income.

Possible responsible actors:

manufacturer;

software developer;

system integrator;

operator;

maintenance provider.

The court would examine:

Was there wrongful conduct?

Who committed it?

Did each person's conduct contribute to the accident?

Was the conduct causally connected to the injury?

Did an independent event intervene?

Did the victim contribute?

What losses were natural consequences?

Should liability be allocated proportionately or jointly and severally?

This is the essence of networked causation.

28. Key Principles for UAE Civil Law

29. Exam-Oriented Formula

For an examination answer, use:

Wrongful Conduct → Causal Contribution → Common/Distributed Harm → Intervening Causes → Claimant Contribution → Natural Consequences → Allocation of Liability → Compensation

A strong conclusion can be written as:

Networked causation under UAE civil law does not mean that every participant in a distributed system becomes liable for the resulting damage. The court must identify the legally relevant contribution of each actor, examine competing and intervening causes, consider any contribution by the injured party, and then apply the statutory rules governing allocation and compensation. Article 253 of the current Civil Transactions Law provides the principal statutory mechanism for multiple responsible persons, while Article 255 limits compensation to losses that are a natural consequence of the harmful act. (UAE Legislation)

Important case-law qualification

The UAE has not yet developed a large body of reported appellate decisions specifically using the modern term “networked causation” for AI, cloud, blockchain or other distributed technological systems. The cases above are therefore a combination of direct causation/multiple-liability authorities and closely relevant analogical authorities. The older cases arose under the former Civil Transactions Law, while Article 253 of Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 is the current statutory starting point from 1 June 2026. (UAE Legislation)