Correlation

Originally posted by Palynka
There is a strong correlation between the number of posts exchanged between Blackamp and Freaky, and the number of threads started by Grampy Bobby.

But is there causation?

The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the
negligence of the defendant. This test is best illustrated by:
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1968] 1 All ER 1068
Robinson v Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737
It is possible to apply the ‘but for’ test where there is speculation as to how
the claimant would have behaved in a given situation. Contrast the two
following cases:
Cummings (or McWilliams) v Sir William Arrol & Co [1962] 1 All ER 623
Bux v Slough Metals Ltd [1974] 1 All ER 262
The question of causation may also arise where there is a dispute about what
the defendant would have done in a given situation, as in:
Bolitho v City & Hackney HA [1997] 4 All ER 771
Sometimes, it may be clear that the defendant’s breach of a duty did not
actually cause the harm suffered by the claimant. See:
The Empire Jamaica [1955] 1 All ER 452
PROOF OF CAUSATION
The claimant must prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the defendant’s
breach of duty caused the harm. The defendant does not have to provide an
explanation for the cause of harm but a failure to do so may be a factor in
deciding whether the claimant’s explanation of the cause should be accepted.
See:
Pickford v Imperial Chemical Industries [1998] 3 All ER 462
MULTIPLE CAUSES
However, the claimant does not have to prove that the defendant’s breach of
duty was the main cause of the damage provided that it materially contributed
to the damage.


ewut?

Originally posted by mikelom
The claimant must prove that harm would not have occurred ‘but for’ the
negligence of the defendant. This test is best illustrated by:
Barnett v Chelsea & Kensington Hospital [1968] 1 All ER 1068
Robinson v Post Office [1974] 2 All ER 737
It is possible to apply the ‘but for’ test where there is speculation as to how
the claimant would have behaved in a ...[text shortened]... the main cause of the damage provided that it materially contributed
to the damage.


ewut?

LOL, he said cummings.

Originally posted by Jigtie
Have you seen my butterfly?

It's open.