Drake v Harbour [2008] EWCA Civ 25, [2008] All ER (D) 283 (Jan)
In a case where negligence has been found and the damage which has occurred is the sort of damage which one might expect to occur from the nature of the work which the defendants have been carrying out, a court should be prepared to take a reasonably robust approach to causation (Lord Justice Longmore at para 15).
Where a claimant proves both that a defendant was negligent and that loss ensued which was of a kind likely to have resulted from such negligence, this will ordinarily be enough to enable a court to infer that it was probably so caused, even if the claimant is unable to prove positively the precise mechanism.
That is not a principle of law nor does it involve an alteration in the burden of proof; rather, it is a matter of applying common sense. The court must consider any alternative theories of causation advanced by the defendant before reaching its conclusion about where the probability lies.
If it concludes that
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=2c3eca9_1)
