Report comment

The comments from D Crawford are so tiresome. We all accept you know best, that you never put a foot wrong in your long and distinguished career and that anyone who adopts methods different to your own is an imbecile, charlatan or both.

I aspire to your perfection.

Though,it must be said here,that you are confusing causation and contributory negligence. In the clin neg case the injuries were clearly devastating and the key point was whether the alleged breach caused the injury and loss. Ultimately that requires in depth expert analysis and you never quite know what the conclusions of the experts will be. The Claimant has to prove causation. No doubt the higher valuation was the correct one had the causation point been made out. Clearly it wasn't .

Your analogy of stepping in front of a bus is about contrib. The Claimant there has to prove negligence to establish any liability , the Defendant bus company has to prove contributory negligence. I fail to see the connection between your pedestrian analogy and the practices of clinical negligence lawyers.