In this case the plaintiff had been born prematurely. He suffered a condition that caused him to go blind. There was evidence that his blindness could have been caused by any of five different factors, only one of which was tortious (i.e. an excess of oxygen given incorrectly). The others were all the natural result of his premature birth. The evidence suggested that these factors did not operate together to cause the blindness – one factor was solely responsible for the loss. The court applied the ‘but for’ test in this situation. The plaintiff had to prove that but for the defendant’s breach he would not have suffered the blindness. As the standard of proof in civil actions is the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff had to establish that is was more likely than not (i.e. 51 per cent) that the blindness was caused by the negligence as opposed to any of the other possible factors. The plaintiff was unable to do this on the evidence available and so did not succeed.
Answer
Wilsher v Essex AHA [1988] AC 1074
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
In this case the plaintiff had been born prematurely. He suffered a condition that caused him to go blind. There was evidence that his blindness could have been caused by any of five different factors, only one of which was tortious (i.e. an excess of oxygen given incorrectly). The others were all the natural result of his premature birth. The evidence suggested that these factors did not operate together to cause the blindness – one factor was solely responsible for the loss. The court applied the ‘but for’ test in this situation. The plaintiff had to prove that but for the defendant’s breach he would not have suffered the blindness. As the standard of proof in civil actions is the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff had to establish that is was more likely than not (i.e. 51 per cent) that the blindness was caused by the negligence as opposed to any of the other possible factors. The plaintiff was unable to do this on the evidence available and so did not succeed.
Answer
?
Tags
#causation #law #negligence #tort
Question
In this case the plaintiff had been born prematurely. He suffered a condition that caused him to go blind. There was evidence that his blindness could have been caused by any of five different factors, only one of which was tortious (i.e. an excess of oxygen given incorrectly). The others were all the natural result of his premature birth. The evidence suggested that these factors did not operate together to cause the blindness – one factor was solely responsible for the loss. The court applied the ‘but for’ test in this situation. The plaintiff had to prove that but for the defendant’s breach he would not have suffered the blindness. As the standard of proof in civil actions is the balance of probabilities, the plaintiff had to establish that is was more likely than not (i.e. 51 per cent) that the blindness was caused by the negligence as opposed to any of the other possible factors. The plaintiff was unable to do this on the evidence available and so did not succeed.
Answer
Wilsher v Essex AHA [1988] AC 1074
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it Independent Causes In some situations the claimant has suffered a loss that is known to have been caused by one factor working independently (A or B = loss). A good example of a case to illustrate this is Wilsher v Essex AHA [1988] AC 1074. In this case the plaintiff had been born prematurely. He suffered a condition that caused him to go blind. There was evidence that his blindness could have been caused by any of five d
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.