Sentences with phrase «established as a probability»

Not exact matches

Dodd's whole thesis with regard to a kerygmatic chronology fails for lack of the confirming evidence required to establish a position which would reverse the course of scholarship, and thus must move against the stream of current views as to the probabilities in the case.

Where the magisterium does not reject a secular doctrine as directly or indirectly opposed to Revelation, it can only note the degree of probability attributed to the theory by secular science, state this and take it into account for the purpose of its own reflections, but can not establish and pronounce upon it.

To do so, the researchers used and developed established methods such as analytical mathematics for the kinetics of gas properties and the Monte Carlo method — a stochastic method based on the theory of probability.

Student achievement is improved by using high - probability instructional practices in the classroom, including establishing clear learning targets for students based on state standards and giving students ongoing feedback on their achievement so that performance improves as mastery of learning is assessed over time.

Tolerance bands are established chronologically at the 25th and 75th percentile of these cumulative return scenarios as probability constraints.

My earlier criticism had been that the IPCC AR4 report was equivocating in not stating clearly and forcefully enough that human - induced warming of the climate system is established fact, and not something to be labeled as «very likely» at the 90 percent probability level.

Until we can establish a reasonable level of internal consistency and empirical adequacy, declining to interpret model - based probabilities as decision - relevant probabilities isn't high skepticism, but scientific common sense.

(2) Exceptionally, a plaintiff may succeed by showing that the defendant's conduct materially contributed to risk of the plaintiff's injury, where (a) the plaintiff has established that her loss would not have occurred «but for» the negligence of two or more tortfeasors, each possibly in fact responsible for the loss; and (b) the plaintiff, through no fault of her own, is unable to show that any one of the possible tortfeasors in fact was the necessary or «but for» cause of her injury, because each can point to one another as the possible «but for» cause of the injury, defeating a finding of causation on a balance of probabilities against anyone.

In Her Majesty the Queen v. Robert David Nicholas Bradshaw, the majority of the Supreme Court found that the trial judge had erred in admitting a video re-enactment statement into evidence, as «[t] he Crown failed to establish the threshold reliability of this statement on a balance of probabilities.»

The reasons of Madam Justice Stewart depend on the presence of a crime, but there is a serious question as to whether this can be taken as having been established by a finding that is based on the civil standard (balance of probabilities) as opposed to the criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt).

Those who seek production of evidence must at least establish that the documents are «likely to be material»; that is, that these can be established as a real possibility although not necessarily a probability, that the documents will be material.

The test for establishing causation is the «but for» test, which requires the plaintiff to prove on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence was necessary to bring about the injury.11 The «but - for» test has almost universal acceptance as an instrument for ascertaining causation.

It is a basic principle of the law of negligence that it is not sufficient for a plaintiff to merely demonstrate that a defendant had acted negligently; it must also establish that the defendant's negligence is what caused the plaintiff's injury.8 The onus lies on the plaintiff to establish causation as a probability and it is insufficient to merely demonstrate that the defendant's negligence caused the plaintiff injury.9 The proof of causation is a necessary element of negligence, as «a defendant in an action in negligence is not a wrongdoer at large: he [or she] is a wrongdoer only in respect of the damage which he [or she] actually causes to the plaintiff.

[49] As discussed above, the cases consistently hold that scientific precision is not necessary to a conclusion that «but for» causation is established on a balance of probabilities.

Therefore, as a matter of common sense, I conclude that the plaintiff has established, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendants» negligence materially contributed to the injury.»

And statutory compensation schemes — think workers» comp or motor vehicle accident accident benefits — where the Athey material contribution to injury test (understood as a method of establishing factual causation on the balance of probability) was adopted as the meaning of the causation terminology in the statute were wrong in justifying their decisions based on Athey, even if decision on the meaning of the statute was correct?

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.

The Court decided the trial judge had carefully weighed the evidence as a whole, including the statistical evidence, the evidence specific to the Plaintiff, and the three expert opinions, all of which involved some speculation and held that she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish causation on a balance of probabilities:

Whatever Athey material contribution meant before Resurfice (2007) and before Clements, it was (then) understood as an alternative method for establishing factual causation on the balance of probability.

It necessarily follows, although the the Supreme Court did not explicitly say this so, that Athey material contribution, whatever it meant before 2007 as a method for establishing factual causation on the balance of probability, is as dead as the proverbial Monty Python Norweigian blue parrot.

We also haven't seen any cases where a judge said that he or she, before Resurfice, would have found the factual causation issue in favour of the plaintiff using Athey material contribution — finding factual causation on the balance of probability — but, as a result of Resurfice, is now required to use the but - for test and, on the facts, must find the plaintiff failed to establish factual causation on the balance of probability.

In an action alleging delay in diagnosis and treatment, such as this one, the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the failure to diagnose the anastomotic leak in a timely fashion was a necessary cause of the unfavourable outcome for Jordan.

I tried my best to convince him that the probability of that happening was impossible as the tenants had long term leases, not to mention that their businesses were established at this location, meaning they would lose their customers and perhaps their business.