In the laws of the tort of negligence statute, two tests are used to determine a case in the courts. These are the but for and the material causation tests. (Weir, Smyth 2015.) In this essay I will be discussing how to start a negligence case, what are the two tests, the differences between the two tests for negligence, and how and when to use these tests for the laws of negligence with case examples. First, we will start off what is negligence and how to start.
To start off, we first ask what negligence is? Well negligence in the field of law is the failure of defendant to protect the duty of care owed to the plaintiff with what a reasonable man or person would have done in the situation (Weir & Smyth, 2015) There are four steps/circumstances …show more content…
Well, it is the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by acting negligently in a way that left the plaintiff unprotected to an unreasonable (over 50%) risk of injury or harm from the actions of that defendant in the situation (Bain, Vizzaccaro 2012. Para 8). For the material causation test, the question that we ask is that “did the defendants acts to cause the possibility of harm to the plaintiff.” (Bain, Vizzaccaro 2012 Para 8). This is compared to but for where the question raised is but for the actions would the plaintiff suffered damages. Remember it is looked through objectively through what a reasonable man would have done. The material contribution test also has to prove that the risk of harm by the actions of the defendant was “over 50% probability” in causing the unreasonable risk (Ferranti, 2016). I now want to show an example of the material contribution test to explain it in better …show more content…
The but for the test is available when the plaintiff can prove that the defendant caused their damage and that “but for the damages” they would be okay (Weir & Smyth, 2015). The but for the test is used as a backward looking statement and the costs are paid out to restore the person to how they were before the damages (Ferranti, 2016). On the other hand, the material causation test is available when there is 50% or greater probability that the defendant’s actions caused the risk of harm to the plaintiff (Ferranti, 2016). The material contribution test can only be used if the but for the test is not available or it is impossible for the plaintiff to use the but-for test to prove negligence (Weir & Smyth, 2015). A similarity is that they both award backward looking damages since they are both in the tort of negligence. Another similarity is that they are both fact causation tests which mean they use facts to prove their point. (Ferrtani, 2016). Now we are going to be moving on to the
To start off, we first ask what negligence is? Well negligence in the field of law is the failure of defendant to protect the duty of care owed to the plaintiff with what a reasonable man or person would have done in the situation (Weir & Smyth, 2015) There are four steps/circumstances …show more content…
Well, it is the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff by acting negligently in a way that left the plaintiff unprotected to an unreasonable (over 50%) risk of injury or harm from the actions of that defendant in the situation (Bain, Vizzaccaro 2012. Para 8). For the material causation test, the question that we ask is that “did the defendants acts to cause the possibility of harm to the plaintiff.” (Bain, Vizzaccaro 2012 Para 8). This is compared to but for where the question raised is but for the actions would the plaintiff suffered damages. Remember it is looked through objectively through what a reasonable man would have done. The material contribution test also has to prove that the risk of harm by the actions of the defendant was “over 50% probability” in causing the unreasonable risk (Ferranti, 2016). I now want to show an example of the material contribution test to explain it in better …show more content…
The but for the test is available when the plaintiff can prove that the defendant caused their damage and that “but for the damages” they would be okay (Weir & Smyth, 2015). The but for the test is used as a backward looking statement and the costs are paid out to restore the person to how they were before the damages (Ferranti, 2016). On the other hand, the material causation test is available when there is 50% or greater probability that the defendant’s actions caused the risk of harm to the plaintiff (Ferranti, 2016). The material contribution test can only be used if the but for the test is not available or it is impossible for the plaintiff to use the but-for test to prove negligence (Weir & Smyth, 2015). A similarity is that they both award backward looking damages since they are both in the tort of negligence. Another similarity is that they are both fact causation tests which mean they use facts to prove their point. (Ferrtani, 2016). Now we are going to be moving on to the