What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that negligence was not the sole cause of injury?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Bartel v. Milliken, 2012 BCSC 563 (CanLII):

The plaintiff is not required to establish that the defendant’s negligence was the sole cause of the injury. The tortfeasor must take his or her victim as the tortfeasor finds the victim, and is liable even if there are other causal factors, for which the defendant is not responsible, that result in the victim’s losses being more severe than they would be for the average person. At the same time, the tortfeasor need not put the victim in a better position than they would have been in, and need not compensate the victim for the effects of a pre-existing condition that the victim would have experienced in any event: Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311; Athey.

Other Questions


Does a plaintiff have to prove that negligence was the sole cause of injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to establish that negligence was the sole cause of injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law where a plaintiff can only prove cause and contribution to the injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to establish that negligence was not the sole cause of injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that their negligence was the cause of their symptoms? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does the absence of an invitation or licence or licence to enter the cemetery by climbing the fence of a private cemetery for a male plaintiff cause the male plaintiff injury? (Manitoba, Canada)
What is the burden on a plaintiff to prove that their injuries were caused by negligence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to prove past events such as negligence on a balance of probabilities? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to prove that they are liable for the loss of a person by negligence? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to prove a contingency of her pre-existing condition to cause a loss? (British Columbia, Canada)