The Betts v Whittingslowe principle permitting inference of causation from breach does not compel such an inference; evidence of a plaintiff's general disinclination to comply with rules — including conduct at school and non-compliance with other safety rules at the same premises — is admissible and relevant to rebut the inference. The persuasive onus on causation remains on the plaintiff throughout, and the remarks of Gaudron J in Bennett describe a line of reasoning, not a reversal of the legal onus.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.