What is the test for a plaintiff to prove but for the Accident?

British Columbia, Canada


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

The plaintiff must prove, but for the Accident, what she would have earned, not on a balance of probabilities, but on an assessment of damages based on a consideration of hypothetical events that constitute a real and substantial possibility. The relative weight of such hypothetical events is to be assessed according to their relative likelihood: Grewal v. Naumann, 2017 BCCA 158 at paras. 44-49.

Other Questions


Does a plaintiff have to prove negligence in a motor vehicle accident case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for proving a plaintiff’s liability in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to prove that the accident caused or contributed to their degenerative changes? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there a need for physical or temporal proximity between a plaintiff and plaintiff in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a motor vehicle accident, can a plaintiff who begins to abuse alcohol after the accident be held responsible for his injuries? (British Columbia, Canada)
How can a plaintiff prove causation in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff entitled to an award for costs of future care for a plaintiff who was injured in a motor vehicle accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a motor vehicle accident, can a plaintiff continue to suffer from chronic neck and back pain for at least three years after the accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a motor vehicle accident is an accident or an accident? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to prove that the injuries to her back and nose were caused by the injuries sustained 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.