In other words, the question (under
the causation test analysis) is whether it could be said the use or operation of the vehicle was a «direct cause» of the respondent's injuries.
Not exact matches
Accident reconstruction &
causation analysis, human factors, occupant dynamics & biomechanics, occupant protection system evaluations (including: seat belts, airbags, and vehicle interior design), time - position - speed & delta - v calculations, airbag tank
testing, computer - aided reconstructions & simulations, product defects, accident scene and vehicle damage assessments, transportation issues.
As such, the Court of Appeal could not agree with the Appellants» argument that, in the circumstances of this case, the Trial Judge ought to have relaxed the
causation test so as to permit a «common sense»
analysis of the issue.
Rouleau J.A. stated: «The «robust and pragmatic» approach is not a distinct
test for
causation but rather an approach to the
analysis of the evidence said to demonstrate the necessary causal connection between the conduct and the injury.
However, the SCC's
analysis encouraged lawyers to bring more lawsuits that do not meet the «but for»
test, and broadened options to use the «material contribution»
test as an easier way to prove
causation:
The trial judge's finding that the material contribution
test was satisfied can not be reinterpreted as a finding that «but for»
causation was established without seriously undermining the important distinction between the two
tests and the clarity of the
analysis pertaining to
causation.
While the SCC rejected the details of the Clements
analysis of Resurfice material contribution, the SCC seems to have accepted the BCCA explanation that Resurfice material contribution is not a
test for factual
causation but a policy — based approach that, in certain circumstances, will permit the courts to hold the caausation requirements of the cause of action have been satisfied notwithsanding that factual
causation has not been established on the balance of probability.