Report comment

It's 12.10 again.

The other thing, 2.37, is that even after experts of like discipline meet, there is still no consensus. I'm sure we've all been there before. There is a division of expert opinion, along partisan lines, with both sides at enormous risk.

David, again with respect, I think you fail to grasp what clin neg litigation is all about. It is entirely possible to have a breach-admitted claim worth several times £1m, with rock solid evidence of lifelong physical, cognitive and psychological injuries requiring the most intensive care and therapeutic inputs imaginable, but where there is simply no certainty as to whether the cause of the presentation would have been avoided without the negligence, or would have been present without the negligence. On one finding you lose 100%. On another finding you win 100%. It is one or the other, and it cannot be both.

So yes, they will have had supportive causation evidence, however they will also have been in receipt of unfavourable causation evidence. Hence the enormous risk to both parties. Hence the settlement.