What is the burden of proof in cases where the evidence of negligence is circumstantial?

British Columbia, Canada


The following excerpt is from Westshore Terminals Ltd. v. Sandwell Inc., 1999 CanLII 5748 (BC SC):

The burden of proof in cases where the evidence of negligence is circumstantial was discussed in Fontaine v. Leowen Estate (1998), 1998 CanLII 814 (SCC), 156 D.L.R. (4th) 577 (S.C.C.). Fontaine dealt with the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, deciding that it has no application in negligence cases. The decision is useful, however, for its discussion of circumstantial evidence.

Other Questions


In an aboriginal rights and title case, how have the courts considered expert evidence in aboriginal cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is it appropriate to re-open a hearing to receive oral evidence in cases of conflicting evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the burden of proof in a motor vehicle accident case? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a Workers’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal case, is there any case law that supports the argument that there is no case law in favour of a claim under the Employment Benefits Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether the evidence in a medical malpractice case supports the case? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a plaintiff have to satisfy the burden of proof in a personal injury case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the case law on the validity of evidence in a medical malpractice case? (British Columbia, Canada)
Does a trial judge have to consider the evidence that supports a finding of criminal negligence in a dangerous driving case? (British Columbia, Canada)
How has expert evidence been interpreted in police negligence cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law where there was no evidence which proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt? (British Columbia, Canada)
X



Alexi white


"The most advanced legal research software ever built."

Trusted by top litigators from across North America.