What is the test for determining but for causation in a medical malpractice case?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Lock v Floreani, 2017 BCSC 1313 (CanLII):

The “but for” causation test must be applied in a robust common sense fashion. There is no need for scientific evidence of the precise contribution the defendant’s negligence made to the injury. See Wilsher v. Essex Area Health Authority, [1988] A.C. 1074 (H.L.), at p. 1090, per Lord Bridge; Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311.

Other Questions


What is the test for determining whether the evidence in a medical malpractice case supports the case? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a medical malpractice case, in what circumstances will the trier of fact make a legal determination of causation? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test in determining causation in a medical malpractice case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a plaintiff’s claim of causation in a medical malpractice case is based on the risk factors associated with increased risk of adverse effects? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has causation been determined in a medical malpractice case? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the entire agreement clause in a medical malpractice case apply to all medical malpractices? (British Columbia, Canada)
How have medical and/or legal opinions been interpreted in medical malpractice cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a jury to determine whether a medical malpractice case will require a scientific investigation? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining causation in a medical malpractice action? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the standard of care of the medical staff in the context of medical malpractice cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.