Sentences with phrase «negligence on a balance of probabilities»

Not exact matches

[13] To recap, the basic rule of recovery for negligence is that the plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the defendant caused the plaintiff's injury on the «but for» test.

(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.

[126] The «but for» test is the general test for factual causation: the plaintiff must prove on a balance of probabilities that but for the defendant's negligence, she would not have suffered her injuries.

The burden is on a claimant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the solicitor's negligence was a cause of his loss.

[39] The burden is on the plaintiff to prove on a balance of probabilities that she was injured in the accident that was caused by the admitted negligence of the defendant.

Does the evidence as recounted in the reasons support the conclusion that the negligence was a cause on the balance of probability?

However, the only «principles» that he could have been referring to are (a) those which describe the nature of the evidence that was required for a valid decision on the issue of whether the nurses» negligence was a factual cause and, then, (b) what test to use to decide if the evidence is sufficient on the balance of probability.

In Fisher v. Victoria Hospital, [1] the first trial in this action, the trial judge found the hospital's nurses negligent and that negligence a but - for cause of the infant's injuries on the balance of probability.

The hospital was not able to show that there was no evidence upon which a trial judge, acting properly could have found causation established on the balance of probability, so the case was sent back for a new trial, only on the issue of whether the nurses» negligence was a cause of the child's injury.

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.

Although the Respondent was negligent in failing to install smoke alarms, the Appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, the Respondent's negligence caused the losses claimed.

However, section 193 (1) of the Highway Traffic Act applies a «reverse onus» requiring the driver of a motor vehicle who collides with a pedestrian or cyclist to prove, on a balance of probabilities that the collision did not arise from their negligence or improper conduct.

Sharpe J.A. said that the Court was unable to discern the test for causation applied by the trial judge and held that there was no evidence on a balance of probabilities that, but for the physician's negligence, the Plaintiff would not have lost her leg.

Have the plaintiffs proven, on a balance of probabilities, that the delay in resulting from [this defendant's] negligence caused or contributed to the injuries of Jordan Sacks?

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.»

[95] The plaintiff must establish on a balance of probabilities that the defendant's negligence caused or materially contributed to an injury.

Are we back to a version of the pre-Resurfice situation where (so it was said), to succeed at all, a plaintiff had to get a finding that a defendant's negligence - related causation had been established on the balance of probability, regardless of the test that was used?

The SCC was, and is, correct in stating that if the ABCA's view was correct, the Athey material contribution test, as the ABCA understood it, had become the default test for proof of factual causation on the balance of probability in negligence actions.

Slatter J.A. noted, at para. 34, that the general test for causation in tort is that a plaintiff must generally establish on a balance of probabilities that the injury would not have occurred but for «the negligence of the defendant»: Fullowka v. Pinkerton's of Canada Ltd., 2010 SCC 5 (CanLII) at para. 93; Resurfice Corp. v. Hanke, 2007 SCC 7 (CanLII) at paras. 21 — 22; Athey v. Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458 at para. 14; and Clements v. Clements, 2012 SCC 32 (CanLII) at paras. 6 — 8.