Establishing a causal relationship is one of the fundamental pillars of fault-based civil liability, such that without it, no right is recognized for the plaintiff. This study aims to reconsider the traditional understanding of causation by analyzing the concept of "probabilistic causation" with reference to common law sources. In this concept, the harmful act merely increases the likelihood of damage occurring and, unlike definitive causation, does not guarantee its realization. Clarifying the distinction between this and similar concepts—such as epistemic challenges and the burden of proof—contributes to a more precise understanding. Findings indicate that in common law, a factor's tendency to cause harm may be sufficient for it to be accepted as a cause. This perspective may pave the way for the development of civil liability in emerging issues. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and data collection has been carried out through library studies. This analysis highlights flexible legal approaches to complex causal uncertainty effectively.