What is the test for determining but for causation in medical malpractice cases?
Ontario, Canada
The following excerpt is from Coetzee v. Mississauga Hospital, 2005 CanLII 21679 (ON SC):
In Snell v. Farrell, 1990 CanLII 70 (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311 (S.C.C.) the court stated that the “but for” causation test was not to be applied too rigidly and that causation need not be determined with scientific precision. The causation test is “essentially a practical question of fact which can best be answered by ordinary common sense” (page 328 per Sopinka J.)
"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 have courts dealt with medical malpractices in the context of medical malpractice cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on medical malpractice in the context of medical negligence cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What are the elements of determining causation in medical malpractice cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the test for determining whether there is causation in a medical malpractice case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case authorities in the context of a medical malpractice case? (Ontario, Canada)
Is a standard medical practice negligent in a medical malpractice case? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on expert testimony in medical malpractice cases? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the impact of a medical malpractice case on the economic impact of the case? (Ontario, Canada)
In a medical malpractice case, is a plaintiff entitled to access his medical records and charts? (Ontario, Canada)
What is the case law on the admissibility of expert evidence in medical malpractice cases? (Ontario, Canada)
