In order to make informed, intelligent, fair and reasonable
decisions about causation and liability it is often necessary to rely on the scientific expertise of a qualified accident reconstruction expert.
Not exact matches
For one, the universe may only appear to have order, just as
causation may only appear to actually exist, when in fact any given event may be said to have unlimited causes and we only limit are
decision on what «truly» caused something to GIVE order to the universe — think
about all the finger pointing that goes on every time something unexpected happens.
Iv» e been reading Bsall postings and they all have a lot of passion for educating children which is what education is supposed to be
about... My personal 2cents worth is this - In social science there is very little that can meet the level of scientifically verifiable
causation and we therefor shouldn't be making
decisions that impact childrens lives based on faulty science.
There's at least a half - dozen, maybe more, cases released since March 2007 in which the lawyers have argued
about factual
causation, and the judges have written reasons dealing with factual
causation issues, not mentioning the SCC's
decision in Resurfice v Hanke 2007 SCC 7 and clearly argued and decided based on the case law predating Resurfice.
These DVDs will show you how to make informed
decisions about: claims,
causation development of treatment plans, best practices, management, health promotion, rehabilitation, disability impairment, and return to work.
I've not spilled quite as much real ink (online is different)
about the recent SCC
decision in Resurfice v. Hanke which has one of those «out of the blue» pronouncements of law that had nothing to do with the disposition of the issues in case: the SCC's declaration that fault and increased risk may sometimes be enough to satisfy tort's
causation requirement, even though the injured person can not establish, on the balance of probability, that the fault was a (factual) cause of the injury.