Does a plaintiff have to prove a contingency of her pre-existing condition to cause a loss?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Cruz v. Rashid, 2013 BCSC 1530 (CanLII):
The contingency of her pre-existing condition manifesting on its own to cause a loss does not have to be proven on a balance of probabilities. It is given weight according to its relative likelihood: Zacharias v. Leys, 2005 BCCA 560 at para. 16.
"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.
Other Questions
If a plaintiff fails to prove quantification of their loss by earnings or by capital asset, is that loss quantification quantified or quantified? (British Columbia, Canada)
In what circumstances will a plaintiff have to prove that a breach of her duty caused the loss of her leg? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to an income loss? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the quantum of damages for loss of enjoyment of life, loss of lifestyle, and loss of amenities? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it necessary for a plaintiff to prove that loss of future income is probable? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can knowledge of a cause of cause be used as grounds for cause of dismissal? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to prove that the accident caused or contributed to their degenerative changes? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of future income loss? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is a plaintiff required to prove negative contingencies on a real and substantial possibility of occurrence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that there is a real and substantial possibility of a future event leading to income loss? (British Columbia, Canada)
