Monday, 28 February 2011 05:23
Issues of caustion have long provided a labyrinth of confused and confusing jurisprudence. When will the courts apply a “but for” test and when will they resort to a “material-contribution” test? When will plaintiffs fail to prove causation on a “but-for” test, is it sufficent for a court to say that on a common sense basis it is more likely than not that a defedant’s proven negligence likely contributed to an accident in some material way, particulalry when the injuries are catastrophic? The recent decision of the BC Court of Appeal in Clements v. Clements 2010 BCCA 581 may assist in helping us out of the labyrinth.