About: Gregg v Scott

An Entity of Type: Supreme Court of the United States case, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2 is an English tort law case, on the issue of loss of a chance, in causation. It affirms the principle of Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority, on a narrow margin of 3 to 2. Lord Nicholls' dissent is of particular note, in arguing that loss of a chance should be actionable.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2 is an English tort law case, on the issue of loss of a chance, in causation. It affirms the principle of Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority, on a narrow margin of 3 to 2. Lord Nicholls' dissent is of particular note, in arguing that loss of a chance should be actionable. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 23216301 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 12849 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 1082948506 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:author
  • Lord Hoffman (en)
dbp:citations
  • [2005] UKHL 2 (en)
dbp:court
dbp:dateDecided
  • 2005-01-27 (xsd:date)
dbp:keywords
  • Negligence, loss of a chance (en)
dbp:name
  • Gregg v Scott (en)
dbp:quote
  • 3.15576E8 (dbd:second)
dbp:source
dbp:text
  • I respectfully agree. And in my opinion, the various control mechanisms proposed to confine liability for loss of a chance within artificial limits do not pass this test. But a wholesale adoption of possible rather than probable causation as the criterion of liability would be so radical a change in our law as to amount to a legislative act. It would have enormous consequences for insurance companies and the National Health Service. In company with my noble and learned friends Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers and Baroness Hale of Richmond, I think that any such change should be left to Parliament. (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dct:subject
gold:hypernym
rdf:type
rdfs:comment
  • Gregg v Scott [2005] UKHL 2 is an English tort law case, on the issue of loss of a chance, in causation. It affirms the principle of Hotson v East Berkshire Area Health Authority, on a narrow margin of 3 to 2. Lord Nicholls' dissent is of particular note, in arguing that loss of a chance should be actionable. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Gregg v Scott (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License