They explain the approximately fifteen months of delay on the basis that, prior to Resurface [sic], conflicting appellate
authority on causation made success on appeal very uncertain.
Not exact matches
So, you've got two conflicting points here: one is that two - way bike lanes are correlated with stronger bicycling growth than any other type of protected bike lane in this NITC report (more research needs to be done to confirm
causation, not simply correlation), and second is that
on - street two - way bike lanes are considerably less safe than
on - street one - way bike lanes according to numerous bicycle planning experts and
authorities.
In Bolitho v Hackney and City Health
Authority Bolitho v City and Hackney Health
Authority [1997] 4 All ER 771 it was held that ``... a plaintiff can discharge the burden of proof
on causation by satisfying the court either that the relevant person would in fact have taken the requisite action (although she would not have been at fault if she had not) or that the proper discharge of the relevant person's duty towards the plaintiff required that she take that action».
So, maybe, this is one case that the SCC will grant leave, if only to ignore the
causation principles generally and deal with the BC
authorities about the effect of some (plaintiff - supporting) expert evidence
on the use of the so - called common sense inference.