What is the test for establishing but for causation in a motor vehicle accident?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Meghji v. British Columbia (Ministry of Transportation and Highways), 2014 BCCA 105 (CanLII):

A common sense inference of “but for” causation from proof of negligence usually flows without difficulty. Evidence connecting the breach of duty to the injury suffered may permit the judge, depending on the circumstances, to infer that the defendant’s negligence probably caused the loss. See Snell and Athey v. Leonati, 1996 CanLII 183 (SCC), [1996] 3 S.C.R. 458. …

Other Questions


What is the test for establishing causation between a motor vehicle accident and a subsequent accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a motor vehicle accident case, is causation established if the but for test is unworkable? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the difference between a motor vehicle accident and a subsequent motor vehicle collision? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing a causation in a motor vehicle accident case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing causation in a motor vehicle accident case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test to establish causation in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a motor vehicle accident involving a stolen vehicle, can the driver of the stolen vehicle be held liable for damages? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a motor vehicle accident is an accident or an accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing that depression and business losses were caused or contributed to by a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for establishing that a breach of the standard of care was a factor in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.