Clements v. Clements: A Material Contribution to the Jurisprudence - The Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies the Law of Causation

Crowne, Emir; Ha-Redeye, Omar

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2097881

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 It is notable that these tests are not in line with "but-for test" and they are even considered as an exception to it (Crowne & Ha-Redeye, 2012).…”

Section: Causation and Multiple Tortfeasorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attribution of Liability among Multiple Tortfeasors under Negligence Law: Causation in Iran and England

Noee¹,

Noee²,

Mehrpouyan³

2016

JPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract"Causation" possesses a considerable place in tort law of Iran and England particularly in the field of Negligence law. Existing differences in legal systems of Iran (as a Civil Law system) and England (as a Common Law system) make find a common perspective difficult to study causation but possible. This research focuses to compare causation in cases where more than one tortfeasors is involved in inflicting damage by negligence. This study also attempts to recognize differences and similarities between Iran and England in order to resolve ambiguities in Iran legal system through England legal system. The study was conducted in three sections including tortfeasors' indenpendancy, tortfeasors' contribution, and tortfeasors' separate impact. This paper reports respectively: in case of tortfeasor independency, Iran law admits jointly and severally liability while England law offers a variety of approaches in various cases; in case of tortfeasors' contribution, each tortfeasor is liable according to its effect on causing damage with few exceptions; and in case of tortfeasors' separate impact, per tortfeasor is liable for inflicted damage which is only from oneself side. The results show England law can be considered to filling legal gap of Iran law regarding present identified differences and similarities.

show abstract

“…1 It is notable that these tests are not in line with "but-for test" and they are even considered as an exception to it (Crowne & Ha-Redeye, 2012).…”

Section: Causation and Multiple Tortfeasorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attribution of Liability among Multiple Tortfeasors under Negligence Law: Causation in Iran and England

Noee¹,

Noee²,

Mehrpouyan³

2016

JPL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Hows, Whys, and But-Fors: Theorizing, Comparing, and Solution Finding within the Principle of Material Contribution to Risk in the Law of Negligence

Caunt

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This thesis will provide a significant and original contribution to the scholarship on tort causation. Material contribution to risk is a principle of tort causation; yet has never been applied. It may potentially violate all of the principles that underpin tort causation, whatever those principles may be. Alternately, it may simply be another conventional adaptation of tort causation to avoid manifest injustice. The supposition is that it will fall somewhere between. This thesis contributes to the literature converting this supposition into knowledge. This thesis has three parts. The first seeks to do what few in tort writing do: craft a methodology. The first part compares and contrasts the theory that underpins tort law, the law of negligence, and finally, the theory of causation. Any choice in the latter part of the article is obviously conditioned on which theory explains the actual benefits and harms of such a choice. The second part uses comparison to determine where the Canadian law of material contribution to risk currently rests. By showing the fundamental dissimilarities between the Canadian and UK jurisprudence, this part shows that the two jurisdictions are, and should continue to be, unique. The third part considers two areas of material contribution to risk that are fundamentally unclear. Firstly, circumstances in which material contribution to risk can apply in lieu of the de facto but-for test are, at best, transparent. This section is termed the 'trigger' section-and probes when material contribution to risk can be applied instead of the de facto but-for test. Secondly, who is liable for what under material contribution to risk is also unclear. This section is termed apportionment-and determines which liability rule should determine which defendant should be liable for what share of the damages. This thesis makes an original contribution to the literature by defining the underlying theory of causation in negligence through the application of robust methodology; defining the Canadian law of material contribution to risk; and finally, iii establishing both what the trigger is, and what apportionment should be, in relation to material contribution to risk.

show abstract

Clements v. Clements: A Material Contribution to the Jurisprudence - The Supreme Court of Canada Clarifies the Law of Causation

Cited by 2 publications

References 3 publications

Attribution of Liability among Multiple Tortfeasors under Negligence Law: Causation in Iran and England

Attribution of Liability among Multiple Tortfeasors under Negligence Law: Causation in Iran and England

Hows, Whys, and But-Fors: Theorizing, Comparing, and Solution Finding within the Principle of Material Contribution to Risk in the Law of Negligence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About