{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01675257731958763, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.285714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Proof of loss and loss of a chance

A word is merited about the terminology of damages for loss of a chance. While it may be possible to distinguish conceptually between damages for loss of a chance and damages for the chance of a loss, this chapter draws no such distinction. Rather it uses the terminology of loss of a chance in a wide sense which covers both the lost chance of acquiring a benefit and the lost chance of avoiding a detriment. Increasing the chance of a loss equates to the lost chance of avoiding a detriment and this explains why a case like Barker v Corus (UK) Plc—where, as we have seen in the previous chapter, the courts awarded damages proportionately to the ‘material increase in risk’ of a disease—is equally well viewed as a loss of a chance case.