I am not persuaded by any floodgates considerations. As noted, I am not aware of any case similar to this one. Furthermore, Chief Justice Holt rejected a floodgates argument in Ashby v. White. At p. 955 Ld. Raym., p. 137 E.R., he stated: So here in the principal case, the plaintiff is obstructed of his right, and shall therefore have his action. And it is no objection to say, that it will occasion multiplicity of actions; for if men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too; for every man that is injured ought to have his recompense.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.