FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2759464910> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2759464910 startingPage "491" @default.
• W2759464910 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION More than fifteen years have passed since the publication of the predecessor to this Article, in which this author advocated a different approach to the loss-of-a-chance doctrine in personal injury torts cases.' The thesis of that article was, simply put, that when a defendant tortiously destroys or reduces a victim's prospects for achieving a more favorable outcome, the plaintiff should be compensated for that lost prospect.2 Damages should be based on the extent to which the defendant's tortious conduct reduced the plaintiff's likelihood of receiving a better outcome.3 The victim's lost prospects should be compensable irrespective of whether the tortiously reduced likelihood was better than even.4 In other words, a plaintiffs right to damages for the loss of a chance should not be restricted to situations in which the plaintiff proves that it was more likely than not that he would have received a better outcome in the absence of the tortious conduct. For purposes of the present Article,5 the loss-of-a-chance doctrine6 will refer to a rule wherein a victim will be entitled to damages for the tortious reduction of the likelihood of avoiding the adverse consequences in question even if that likelihood was not better than even. The most common paradigm for the loss-of-a-chance doctrine involves a victim suffering from a preexisting condition the adverse consequences of which a defendant health care provider negligently fails to prevent.' Under the loss-of-achance doctrine, the plaintiff would be compensated for the extent to which the defendant's negligence reduced the victim's likelihood of achieving a better outcome, notwithstanding the fact that the likelihood may have been reduced by less than fifty-one percent. Part II of this Article briefly discusses the development of the loss-of-a-chance theory. The purpose in revisiting this topic is neither to survey the current state of the law in any specific jurisdiction or nationally nor to review the many cases and arguments for or against the loss-of-a-chance doctrine.8 Although this Article discusses the British House of Lords's decision in Hotson v. East Berkshire Area Health Authority in some detail, the purpose of this discussion is to facilitate analysis of one conceptual path. This Article does not examine postHotson developments in English law nor English law generally regarding the loss-of-a-chance Once the reader is provided with an overview and analytical framework, the Article considers a reformulation of the The loss-of-a-chance doctrine has garnered substantial support over the past two decades, particularly in medical malpractice cases.la Nevertheless, a nagging perturbation has emerged that threatens to subvert, or at least unnecessarily obfuscate, the It is based on some courts' insistence, to varying degrees, on proof of the existence of a literal chance as a precondition to the application of the loss-of-a-chance doctrine. In order to clarify and rationalize the conceptual line separating causation and valuation,'2 this Article recommends focusing on the tortious reduction of the victim's likelihood of achieving a more favorable outcome.'3 Specifically, this Article seeks to purge the conceptual pitfall that is based on a one-dimensional causation focus on whether the victim had a literal chance. As will be explained, a literal-chance requirement is questionable for several reasons. First, a truly literal chance in the sense of a condition whose effects are totally unpredictable may be nonexistent. Rather, what has typically been referred to in chance parlance would be better conceived as reflecting the reality of our limited perception and fund of knowledge. Second, and more importantly, whether there is or is not a literal chance should not be the deciding factor in determining whether a claim is resolved by causation or valuation (loss-of-achance) principles. Rather, application of the loss-of-a-chance doctrine should depend on the four criteria discussed below. …" @default.
• W2759464910 created "2017-10-06" @default.
• W2759464910 creator A5073900872 @default.
• W2759464910 date "1998-01-01" @default.
• W2759464910 modified "2023-10-02" @default.
• W2759464910 title "Reduction of Likelihood Reformulation and Other Retrofitting of the Loss-of-a-Chance Doctrine" @default.
• W2759464910 hasPublicationYear "1998" @default.
• W2759464910 type Work @default.
• W2759464910 sameAs 2759464910 @default.
• W2759464910 citedByCount "3" @default.
• W2759464910 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2759464910 hasAuthorship W2759464910A5073900872 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C162118730 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C162324750 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C200635333 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C2776211767 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C2777381055 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C2777834853 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C2779412353 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConcept C97460637 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C15744967 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C162118730 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C162324750 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C17744445 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C190253527 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C199539241 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C200635333 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C2776211767 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C2777381055 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C2777834853 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C2779412353 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C83645499 @default.
• W2759464910 hasConceptScore W2759464910C97460637 @default.
• W2759464910 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2759464910 hasLocation W27594649101 @default.
• W2759464910 hasOpenAccess W2759464910 @default.
• W2759464910 hasPrimaryLocation W27594649101 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W1491510703 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W1541609534 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W1601583205 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W1977672783 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W2026801954 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W2083722027 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W221005115 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W2223687006 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W2293495755 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W249162460 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W2918225115 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W2939039929 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W297874879 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W3123466741 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W3123717065 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W3125521425 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W3125566553 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W3181241362 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W37696757 @default.
• W2759464910 hasRelatedWork W1760457886 @default.
• W2759464910 hasVolume "28" @default.
• W2759464910 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2759464910 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2759464910 magId "2759464910" @default.
• W2759464910 workType "article" @default.