Post History

33%

+1 −4

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

2 answers · posted 1y ago by DNB‭ · last activity 1y ago by Hudjefa‭

Question probability

#3: Post edited by $user avatar$ DNB‭ · 2023-05-01T06:54:39Z (over 1 year ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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.~~
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.

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.

#2: Post edited by $user avatar$ DNB‭ · 2023-05-01T06:53:52Z (over 1 year ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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.
~~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.~~

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.
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.

#1: Initial revision by $user avatar$ DNB‭ · 2023-05-01T06:53:22Z (over 1 year ago)

Copy Link

Raw

Markdown

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

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.

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.

probability

Communities

Post History