代写dissertation

What is But for test?

But for test states that, “the plaintiff would not have suffered a loss or causation could not have existed in the absence (but for the absence) of the defendant”. Lunney and Oliphant (2008, pp 210-211) have described in their book “Tort Law: Text and Materials” that the first test the claimant must overcome in setting up causation is but for test. If the claimant’s injury would have existed irrespective of the defendant’s negligence, the negligence is not causative of the loss of claimant.

But for test, is very much helpful, when one or more cause exists behind the occurrence of a loss to a claimant. For instance, In Joyce v Merton Sutton and Wandsworth (1996), the plaintiff underwent an operation which resulted in whole paralysis. The procedure itself was not importantly negligent, in that the plaintiff was discharged from hospital without appropriate advice and instruction. A vascular surgeon must have seen the plaintiff within the first 48 hours and he must have performed to deal with the blockage. In order to succeed on the causation point it was held that the plaintiff would have to prove either that had the vascular surgeon been requested he would have performed or that it would have been negligent for him not to do so. The appropriate test in this situation was to satisfy one of the two queries. First what steps would have taken if appropriate care had been taken or secondly what would have been the result of any further steps that ought to have been taken? In this case the plaintiff was capable to satisfy the 1st question by establishing that the harms would have been eliminated of appropriate care had been taken.

 Using But for Test in the Law of Torts in imposing liability of the defendant

The but for test can be used to set up causation on the facts. However, it does not mean that, once this has been set up the defendant will be liable for all of the harm of the claimant.  In other words, this test helps in determining is the defendant is actually responsible for the causation that has created a loss to the claimant. Satisfying the but for test may be itself is inadequate to set up causation for there may be a number of factual causes for satisfying the test. For instance, if one negligently throws a lighted match on to a newspaper there are at least two causes of the resultant fire which is the oxygen’s presence in the atmosphere and the negligent act of throwing down the match. As a matter of law however the oxygen is disregarded as a cause i.e. it is part of the normal environment and therefore is disregarded when recognizing the cause of some abnormal event. The But for Test cannot resolve all queries of factual causation. Indeed where there has been an omission to act or an act which does not in itself has physical consequences, it may not be a proper test. For instance, if a plaintiff harmed his leg through the negligence of a defendant and left disabled partially and if the plaintiff was shot in same leg by another person and as an outcome of the shooting the leg had to be cut off, then it can be considered as per, “but for test” that the first defendant is only liable for first harm. Irrespective of the amputation it would have been a continuing disability and this liability is imposed on the first defendant. The liability for the existing disability did not cease when the 2nd incident occurred.  Hence the first defendant should be punished under law of torts.

Conclusion:

In general, a plaintiff lodges a complaint against a defendant only when subject to loss by a defendant. When there are several reasons behind the occurrence of the loss, then the actual cause behind the loss has to be determined in order to take a legal action against a defendant. But for test is undoubtedly the best method in predicting the actual cause that created a loss to a claimant who has filed a suit under tort law. It can be understood that the but for test, stands as an important element in predicting the actual cause that created a loss to the claimant, in case of a punishing a defendant using law of torts.

 

代写dissertation

但对于测试是什么?

但对于测试状态,“原告没有遭受了损失或因果关系的情况下,不可能存在(的情况下),被告”。 Lunney和奥利芬特(2008年,页210-211)在其著作“侵权责任法”所描述的:文本和材料“索赔人必须克服的建立因果关系的第一个测试,但测试。如果申请人的伤害本来就已经存在,而不论被告的疏忽,过失引起的损失的索赔人的。

但是,对于测试,是非常有帮助的,当存在一个或多个原因,后面发生的损失索赔人。例如,在乔伊斯v默顿Sutton和旺兹沃思(1996年),原告接受了手术,导致整个瘫痪。的过程本身并不重要的疏忽,在原告出院,没有适当的咨询和指导。血管外科医生必须已经看到了原告的第一个48小时内,他必须进行处理堵塞。为了取得成功的因果关系点上,有人认为,原告必须证明,要么是血管外科医生已要求他会表现或会疏忽对他不这样做。在这种情况下,相应的测试是为了满足两个查询。首先会采取什么措施,如果适当的照顾已经采取或第二会是怎样的结果应该已经采取任何进一步的步骤?在这种情况下,的原告是能够满足第一个问题,通过建立的危害已消除已经采取了适当的护理。

使用,但在侵权法的试验施加法律责任的被告

但测试可以用来建立因果关系的事实。然而,这并不意味着,一旦这个已经成立,被告将承担所有索赔人的危害。换句话说,这个测试有助于确定被告是实际的因果关系,创造了一个向赔偿请求人的损失负责。成立因果关系,有可能是一个数字的事实的原因,用于满足测试满足但测试本身可能是不足够的。例如,如果一个疏忽抛出一个报纸点燃的火柴,这是在大气中氧的存在,扔了比赛的疏忽行为所造成的火灾的原因至少有两个。然而,作为一个法律问题被忽略的氧作为一个原因,即它是正常的环境的一部分,并因此被忽略当识别一些异常事件的原因。但对于测试并不能解决所有的事实因果关系的查询。事实上,那里一直是行动或遗漏的行为,本身并不具有物理的后果,它可能不是一个合适的测试。例如,如果原告对被告的疏忽和损害了他的腿,禁用部分,如果原告在相同的腿,另一人被枪杀的拍摄结果的腿被切断,那么它可以按认为,“但对于测试”,第一被告是第一个伤害承担责任。无论截肢的将是一个持续的残疾和责任强加给第一被告。现有残疾的责任,并没有停止,当第二个事件发生。因此,第一被告应根据侵权法的惩罚。

结论:

在一般情况下,原告提出申诉,控告的被告,只有当被告人的损失。当有几个原因发生的损失,那么必须确定实际损失背后的原因,以便采取法律行动的被告。但对于测试是预测根据侵权法提起诉讼,索赔人的损失,创造了一个真正的原因无疑是最好的方法。这是可以理解的,但用于测试,代表的重要组成部分,在预测的真正原因,创造了一个向赔偿请求人的损失的情况下,惩罚一个被告侵权法。

相关的论文代写的话题