interpreting the provisions related to medical malpractice.2 The French judicial applications demonstrate how the French judicial system transformed the application of some traditional theories to new theories relating to civil accountability specifically in regard to medical accidents and the consequences thereof. These transformations included: 1) Transformation of cause-effect relationship: Establishing civil liability requires the establishment of a relationship between the cause of the medical error and the resulting injury caused to the patient. If the latter fails to establish evidence that the injury suffered is due to direct medical error, the judiciary would normally reject the patient’s case. Upholding this condition deprives victims of medical errors of any right to compensation; this is especially so since it is usually difficult to substantiate medical errors. The judiciary, hence, dismissed this condition, and so the cause-effect relationship is based now on demonstrating one factor of the several factors that might have contributed to the cause of the injury. The French Court of Cassation takes into account the theory of reasons, whereby more than one person is held responsible. This appears to make it even more difficult for the victim of medical errors to prove who is exactly responsible for the injury caused to him or her. However, experience has proven that the number of the persons who might be responsible for an injury decreases to one person as litigation proceedings progress. For example, after the Paris Court of Appeal initially held three persons responsible for a medical error, only one of them turned out to be considered responsible for that error when the case was brought to the Court of Cassation.3 2) Transformation of the burden of proof: Until March 25 1997, courts continued to adopt a general rule which stated that the plaintiff should be charged with the burden of proof. After that date, the French Court of Cassation changed the rule and placed the burden of proof with regard to medical errors on the physician, and not the injured patient. It required that the physician should inform the patient of the therapeutic intervention the patient would be subjected to, including any associated risks. It issued this decision in the case of a person who was suffering from stomach pains, and 2 Tharwat Abdulhameed, Redress of Medical Errors: the extent of liability for harmful repercussions of medical action (Egypt; New University House, 2006), pp. 117-121. Also, Muhammad Hassan Qasim, Proof of Medical Error, (Egypt; New University House, 2006). 3 Abdulhameed, Redress of Medical Errors- the extent of liabilityfor harmful repercussions of medical action, (Jordan; Culture House for Publication and Distribution, 2005), pp. 131-132. See also Ahmad Yasin al-Hiari, The Civic Liability of Medical Physicians in Light of Jordan’s Legal System and Algeria’s Legal System, (Jordan; Culture House for Publication and Distribution, 2005), pp. 135-140. 2