However, one could argue that the «
legal chain of causation» might have been «broken» if the evidence had been that the donor intentionally ignored the CRCS's guidelines when donating, knowing that the guidelines meant the donor wasn't supposed to donate.
Not exact matches
«The
chain of causation will be broken where an intervening event, rather than the defendants» conduct, is considered the proximate or
legal... Continue reading →
The
legal profession does not agree about what exactly is meant by «injury to Aboriginal culture,» what are the defining characteristics
of the wrong, what theories
of liability support it, how
causation may be determined, where the
chain of causation ends and how damages should be conceived and calculated.