Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter

    In Wilsher case, I'm curious why the materially contribution test does not be used in this case when making a claim?

    I saw a question before, it mentioned that although the parents in Wilsher could not take an issue due to their baby's blindness, it is still fair as the baby is still alive although the consequence is the baby lost his eyesight due to the excessive of oxygen. However, I'm still wondering why it is fair?

    Thank you.
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: November 9, 2017
Cats or dogs?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.