Can a plaintiff resort to resort to the less stringent material contribution test?
Alberta, Canada
The following excerpt is from Waap v. Alberta, 2008 ABQB 544 (CanLII):
Resort can be made to the material contribution analysis only if it is impossible to prove negligence using the "but for" analysis. A failure by a plaintiff to prove causation on the "but for" analysis does not, in itself, mean that the plaintiff may then resort to the less stringent material contribution test: Bohun v. Segal, 2008 BCCA 23 at para. 53.
"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
How has the material contribution test been interpreted in medical malpractice cases? (Alberta, Canada)
Can a member of a resort club lease a 30-45-60-year lease to a residential unit at a resort resort club where the lease terms are 3 years? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for material contribution to the risk of injury? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the relevant and material material material record in the context of a claim? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a defendant contributed to a plaintiff’s injuries? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a duly qualified medical professional can examine a plaintiff pursuant to Rule 217? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for a plaintiff to be held liable for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for determining a plaintiff’s loss? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether a defendant is liable for any injuries caused or contributed to by their negligence? (Alberta, Canada)
What is the test for assessing damages for loss of income before a plaintiff has entered into a contract? (Alberta, Canada)
