Apportionment and causative potency (Charles Mitchell, 15 Sep 2005)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Charles Mitchell
Date:	Thu, 15 Sep 2005 10:23:06 +0100
Re:	Apportionment and causative potency

As I understand David Cheifetz's position, he takes a sceptical view of claims that one person's actions can ever meaningfully be said to have been a more potent cause of harm than another's. I am less sceptical, although I accept that apportionment on this basis is a more or less rough and ready process, depending on the facts of a case. I'm sure that David can point to examples where efforts to apportion on this basis are obviously doomed to failure, but that doesn't mean that it can never be meaningfully done. There was a case in the English CA last year where this problem was touched on: Barker v Saint Gobain Pipelines plc [2004] EWCA Civ 545.

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.