Sentences with phrase «law on causation»

Not exact matches

At Oxford University, Tony Honoré made his name as an expert on causation and moral responsibility in the law.

The Ninth Circuit's holding in First Solar marks its first definitive resolution of the internal conflict in its case law on loss causation.

This would not only render the presumably factual principle of uniformity logically necessary, it would also beg the question by simply denying the tenability of the claim that laws evolve and insisting on the notion of uniform causation.

This post is already too long but, for the sake of completeness, since I've suggested there's a significant problem in the judge's use of «substantial», I'll add a bit more, including a reference to the case that once wasn't quite every Canadian (common law side) judge and civil litigator's favourite case on many aspects of proof of causation and damages.

While the main part of the case discussed the usual components of medical malpractice action (standard of care of a physician and causation), it's Canada - wide implication arises from a part of the decision that reviews and clarifies the law on «confidentiality between patient and doctor» in a legal context.

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.

Of course, those damages will still be assessed with reference to ordinary principles of law, including causation, foreseeability, remoteness and mitigation and what amounts to payment within a «reasonable time» will depend on a number of factors to be determined on a case by case basis.

I believe that what I've written below is a good enough summary, for now, of what practitioners in Canada's common law jurisdictions need to know about the effect of Clements v Clements, 2012 SCC 32 on the manner in which causation is to be proved in negligence actions.

Once upon a time, a trial judge said that an article I'd written on causation was «complete» and that some of what I'd said was «the current state of the law in Canada».

And, I suppose there's some reason to consider there's some basis for believing the fact that the Ontario Court of Appeal and the British Columbia Court of Appeal seem to have different views on the law regarding causation could be some basis for believing there's something about the law regarding causation that's a wee bit controversial (even accepting that the division of powers structure in the Constitution Act means that that conflict IS constitutional).

[85] Athey v. Leonati2 is the leading Canadian case on causation in tort law.

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.

The claims involve complex legal procedures, intricate demonstrations of causation, a wealth of information from medical experts, and an unimpeachable understanding of Virginia laws on the matter.

The defendants argued that under New Mexico law, an expert witness is always required to show causation of an injury, and since the plaintiff has not designated an expert witness on that issue, that the plaintiff can not obtain relief.

To make a ruling on the case, the U.S. Federal Court needed to apply New Mexico state law regarding the necessity of an expert witness to show the causation of an injury.

Thus, while the application of the wrong test for causation was an error of law, the error stemmed from the trial judge's failure to appreciate that the expert witnesses were unable to state that causation was established on a balance of probabilities.

At least one of the negligent persons» conduct was, for law, not a cause not a probable factual cause, at least based on a valid application of the but - for test which we are told, again, is the only approved method of establishing factual causation.

If you are a law student or otherwise involved in law, you should reread the chapter in Klar, Tort Law, on causatilaw student or otherwise involved in law, you should reread the chapter in Klar, Tort Law, on causatilaw, you should reread the chapter in Klar, Tort Law, on causatiLaw, on causation.

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.

Civil law requires proof on the balance of probabilities (i.e. 51 % likelihood) while the scientific community does not accept causation unless the results are statistically significant.

This is because the law requires proof of causation only on a balance of probabilities, whereas scientific or medical experts often require a higher degree of certainty before drawing conclusions on causation (p. 330).

MacLean Law's Surrey Vancouver Medical Malpractice Lawyers took note today of the Supreme Court of Canada's newest blockbuster 4:3 decision on causation in medical malpractice cases.

I recommend the causation chapter in Allan Beever's recent text — Rediscovering the Law of Negligence for more depth on why it's a causation of damages issue, not a causation of injuries issue.

In any event, it seems a safe guess that the Clements analysis will spread to other areas of law which have causation requirements, to the extent permitted by the judiciary's views on the principles governing those other areas.

Attorneys for both plaintiffs and defendants will find comprehensive coverage of such matters as: the advantages and disadvantages of suits based on strict liability, negligence and breach of warranty; the use of state consumer protection statutes; the duty to warn and its innumerable ramifications; the liability of the manufacturers, retailers and other potential defendants in the distribution chain; successor liability; federal preemption of common law claims; monitoring product safety during design, manufacturing and distribution; causation theories in actions involving multiple manufacturers; product misuse and alteration; the elements of proof needed in an action; recovery for economic loss; punitive damages; and the government contractor defense.

It's because, due to an unfortunate set of events, May in Vancouver means I'm (once again) scheduled to present a lecture on causation: on Friday, May 5 at UBC, mainly to academic lawyers at the Canadian Law of Obligations 2017: Innovations, Innovators, and the Next 20 Years: http://www.allard.ubc.ca/events/canadian-law-obligations.