and, at the very least, the liability to pay compensation representing the totality of the loss or damage will be apportioned between the two or more tortfeasors. So, for example, if A injures V, it is foreseeable that an ambulance will be called, that paramedics will lift and carry V, and that there will be a journey back to the hospital. This cycle of intervention is continued in the hospital. None of this activity affecting V would arise "but for" the original negligence so A will remain liable unless and until either an unforeseeable B intervenes (e.g. negligently drives his car and collides with the ambulance), or a paramedic or member of the hospital staff is so seriously negligent that it becomes a new cause of action. Acts of the claimant Loss of a chance In loss of chance cases, the court is invited to assess hypothetical outcomes, either affecting the claimant or a third party where the defendant's negligence deprived the claimant of the opportunity to obtain a benefit or avoid a loss. Although it has been relatively unsuccessful in cases of medical negligence, it does provide a remedy in professional negligence generally. Loss of a right Recent medical negligence cases suggest tacit recognition of a more rights-based approach to damage. Causation: law and science compared Science and law have different functions but share striking similarities. Both purport to provide rational, reasoned, independent, unbiased processes concerned with the objective assessment of evidence. There are also striking differences. Scientific assertions compared with determinations of legal causation have the following characteristics: they are population-based, not individual; general not particular; they are probabilistic, not deterministic; they are generally expressed as the refutation of the hypothesis and not a finding of fact or proof of an allegation; the evidence is not exhaustive, whereas an adjudication is determined according to the evidence available. The major distinction between legal determinations and scientific assertions lies in the concept of certainty. The legal concept of causation is deterministic: it is an expression of the fiction of certainty, an absolute concept. The scientific concept of causation is probabilistic: it is an expression of the uncertainty of truth, an asymptotic concept. See also Damages Remoteness in English law References Cane, Peter. (1999). Atiyah’s Accidents, Compensation and the Law. Sixth edition, Chapter 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Deakin, Simon; Johnston, Angus & Markesinis, B. S. (2003). Markesinis and Deakin's Tort