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.
Not exact matches
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 probabilit
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 probabilit
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.
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.