Common criticisms from U.S. state courts rejecting the lost chance doctrine are that it represents a relaxation of the normal burden of proof, and that it represents a drastic shift in tort liability that would be best left up to state legislatures. The Supreme Court of Texas has further noted the risk of creating a slippery slope—if lost chance can be applied in the medical malpractice context, why should it not apply to a legal malpractice plaintiff's claim of a lost chance of victory at trial due to poor lawyering, or perhaps an entrepreneur's lost chance of success for a new failed business due to the actions of another?
Common objections from U.S. state courts in rejecting the lost chance doctrine are that it reduces the normal standard of proof and represents an excessive expansion of tort liability, which should be left to be decided by state legislatures. The Supreme Court of Texas has also noted the potential for creating a slippery slope—if lost chance can be applied in medical malpractice cases, why not also in legal malpractice or business failure contexts?