Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on 25% probability that there was a chance of avoiding injury $\quad$ vs. $\quad$ 25% chance of avoiding injury

Post

25% probability that there was a chance of avoiding injury $\quad$ vs. $\quad$ 25% chance of avoiding injury

+1
−4

I ask about merely the math behind the last sentence of footnote 71 quoted below. I quote the legalistic sentences thereinbefore for context, but they may be immaterial.

How does "a 25% probability that there was a chance of avoiding injury" differ from "25% chance of avoiding injury"? Alas, my mind is conflating these 2 chances.

71 Though some academics do insist that damages for loss of a chance could have been awarded in Hotson [v East Berkshire Health Authority [1987] AC 750 268]: see Peel 2003b, 627, and references contained therein. An amazing number of academics argue that the fact that the House of Lords awarded the claimant in Hotson nothing means that Hotson is authority for the proposition that damages for loss of a chance of avoiding physical injury cannot be claimed in negligence: see Porat & Stein 2003, 679; Weir 2004, 214–15. As the majority of the Court of Appeal recognised in Gregg v Scott [2002] EWCA Civ 1471 (at [39], per Latham LJ and at [78], per Mance LJ) this is incorrect – the facts of the case in Hotson were such that the claimant simply could not bring a claim for loss of a chance against the defendants. See, to the same effect, Reece 1996; also Hill 1991. Fleming 1997 puts the point quite well (at 69): ‘[A] 25% probability that there was a chance [of avoiding injury cannot] be conflated into a 25% chance [of avoiding injury].’

N.J. McBride and R. Bagshaw, Tort Law, 6th edn (2018), page 280, footnote 71.

In the last sentence, "Fleming 1997" refers to John G. Fleming, “Preventive Damages” in N J Mullany (ed), Torts in the Nineties (LBC Information Services, Sydney, 1997), pp 56-71.

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

x-post https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4693904/25-probability-that-there-was-a-chance-of-avo... (1 comment)
Post Feedback (4 comments)
x-post https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4693904/25-probability-that-there-was-a-chance-of-avo...